What does this have to do with intelligent design? How did a guy building a boat affect the development of every species on this planet?

Science has proven that lots of floods have happened, and also that lots of mythologies include floods. There is still no evidence that some guy built a boat, put two of every animal on it, and then were the sole human survivors of a flood that wiped out the rest of humanity, which I believe is the bible story you are referring to. I'm not an expert in that area though, so if I'm getting some of the facts wrong on that account, feel free to correct me.

Even if it were true, Darwin's beliefs wouldn't change his discoveries, and they certainly wouldn't change the many discoveries made after his death (again, see my previous post for references).

Sorry about that, I will try to explain.

A theory, such as evolution, is meant to represent what the world is. People don't just decide on what they think the world should be and then go interpreting the evidence as such.

So, one way to test a theory is to see if it can make predictions. Since we believe the theory is true, we should be able to predict something we haven't seen yet, and if that turns out to be true, it suggests the theory is true.

This video provides a good example of a prediction made by evolution, which was then shown to be true. This provides support for evolution.

If intelligent design could make a prediction, and then that prediction was found to be true, that would support the claim. Irreducidble complexity was the first (and so far only) prediction made by I.D. and it has shown to be false in every example so far presented.

Ok, I understand now.  Quick note on the video.

     It's interesting and I'll have to research that more, though it still doesn't seem to be supported by other science.  First, the fact that the odds of humans from apes are so small.  Second, in order for this fusion to happen, there had to be a transformation... so again I'll ask, where are the neanderthals?  and Third, there are other animals out there (don't ask me which because I don't remember now) that have closer DNA matches than humans do to apes, and yet science does not even remotely claim that those pairs or species are distant relatives.  This is for a few different animals, and I"m not going to name them because I don't want to accidentally mention the wrong ones.  I know it's scientifically proven and it's easily researchable.  

This is not a refute to prove you wrong either, these are just some issues I have with this particular claim.  Just as many non-believers have some issues with my understanding.  

Now, going on to the predictions thing.

     First, I personally never said "Irreducable Complexity".  I just said to transform such a mechanism from one point to another, there first is no understanding of what the purpose of a barely evolved flagellum would be be it that unless all the parts were there the flagellum itself would not work.  Also, there's still the issue that both mechanisms would get in each other's way when evolving.  It doesn't logically make sense that evolution would make such a change to a perfectly sufficient mechanism.  

Also, predicting and seeing if things become true... er... isn't that the basis of the Christian belief?  Yea, I know many non-believers would say it's all just stories.  I think I effectively produced information and a source that would provide more sources for backup proving a few of the stories to be true.  

Second, science and history back the stories up.  There is proof of the approximate age of each book written.  Sure people could have made them up... but then why would history back up such events and then science back up some of the possible phenomena that have happened, ironically around the same time history proves events happening?  

Also, all the "prophesies" in the Bible have been shone to have come true so far, and other prophesies made that have not come true never claimed to have come true yet.  There is no proof out there that I know of that shows any prophesy to be not true.  I'm thinking that if there was, there'd be a lot less Christians out there. 

Note:  Credible Christian Seminaries require history research outside the Bible.  I doubt they'd require that kind of research if there was proof against the belief.   

I never said that it did.  Christianity repeatedly uses science to back it's claims up.  I was just saying your claims  that supposedly refute I.D. would have to apply to theoretical science in order to be true because there is just as much if not more lack of evidence making it scientifically sound. 

It's not that evolution is being represented as random, it has more to do with the fact that in order for apes to become humans, this same event would have had to happen with every other "evolved" species transfer.  The odds taking it all into consideration are inconceivably small.  Plus there would be a lot more genetical mistakes and halfbreeds. This of course taking scientific common sense into consideration.  If evolution was random, the odds would actually be much better than not.   

You're telling me that scientific evidence, geological evidence, historical evidence all put together, ironically painting a picture of events that have in fact happend that explain how Biblical stories could have actually been done is "lucky" and you can't see how intelligent design has to do with it?  

So, for Moses' story for example, the fact that not only at the time that the israelites were being chased by pharo's army was there a volcano erupting, but it just happened to cause a tsunami that ironically pulled the water away from this peice of land at just the right time to let the israelites cross (mind you before pharo's army was able to catch up to them), and then the wave crashes down just in time for pharo's army to be completely wiped out, and yet not one israelite was lost.  And you're saying "lucky"?????? Dude, people can be lucky, but are you kidding me.

Right, and the fact that entropy was at it's lowest at the very beginning promotes the idea that something had to be there to set it up that way.  Entropy is increasing, which means that the useful energy in the universe is decreasing, which means that the universe had the most useful energy at the beginning.... so how did that energy get there?  Not knowing also does not invalidate I.D.   

only if you'd assume that it's how the creator would want to build it... what if the creator wanted the universe exactly the way it is?

why not, non-believers do that to Christianity all the time.

BTW, there's more historical evidence backing up that "out-of-text" quote, but I figured maybe just the quote would be enough. Plus I haven't actually had all the time in the world to be doing all the research required for this blog.  

I am guessing this is a typo and is supposed to mean the "odds of humans evolving from apes are so small." This is a misleading statement. First, there are a lot of similarities between the two species genetically, so I'm not sure what you're basing your analysis of the odds on.

Second, I think that you are again looking at it the wrong way. Yes, the odds of humans evolving from apes are small, but the odds of something evolving are not, and when you consider that evolution is shaped by the environment, even those odds are much better than you may think.

Put it this way: the odds of a species surviving depends on if it is well adapted to the enviornment it is in. If it is not well adapted, it will not survive, and some other species will instead. Humans happened to be well adapted.

They are dead. This actually relates to your first point. Humans and neanderthals lived concurrently, and our species survived while theirs did not. Since both species were in (pretty much) the same ecological niche we competed for resources (e.g. food). Since we were better adapted, we survived and they did not.

There is actually still some debate about if humans and neanderthals were two seperate species or just two subspecies of the same species, but that detail doesn't change the fact that there are none of them around anymore (unless you want to say that they are still around because they are actually us, but I still feel that would just be a matter of semantics). 

Here are two sites with more information and evidence regarding neanderthals: site 1; site 2

I'm not aware of any such animals (about which those claims are made). I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you which, because otherwise I can't address the claim, other than to say that I don't think it's true.

You may have not mentioned irreducible complexity, but it is the only idea related to intelligent design that even had the form of a scientific argument.

Further, the idea of "no means by which evolution could create an ogranism becuase the parts don't work on their own" is basically what irreducible complexity is about, so I found it easier to write I.D. than the entire sentence.

If you read the article again, you will see that there are several functions proposed for the intermediate stages between a secretory organ and a "fully formed" flagellum. They include adhesion and movement (among others). At every step the organ is "fully functional" for its purpose to the organism. Again, the parts of the flagellum, serves functions that are not the same as the flagellum itself.

Assuming no change in the environment, that would be true. However, you must consider that the environment does change. There are changes in temperature, there are changes brought about by the organism itself (the release of mass amounts of oxygen by the earlist photosynthesizers paved the way for animals to respire), and also changes brought about by other organisms (such as predator/prey adaptations). All of these things force species to develop.

I'm not an expert on the bible. However, as in an earlier post I showed how the stories you posted aren't really evidence for god. People used to explain all sorts of things saying "god did it." Is is surpising that when strange things happen they make stories about them and call it god? Not really. They would hardly make stories out of mundane events.

Also, the fact that some people and places mentioned in the stories existed does not mean the stories are true in all aspects. Historical fiction has been written since the beginning of fiction. Have you read the Odyssey and the Illiad? Is your claim that, since there is historical evidence for places and such in that time, the entire stories must be true?

What prophecies were used to predict something? Prediciting in hindsight is not a prediction.

I predict that you will responsd to this post. If you do, I win. If you don't, I say "aha, it has not happened yet."

You must use a prediction to predict what will happen before it happens. For example, if you can find a prophecy in the bible that hasn't happened yet, and then tell us when it will happen, and then if it happens on that time, that would be evidence.

I'm not exacly sure what you mean. If you're saying that Chirstians research history separate from the bible, then I'm not suprised. If you're saying that this is evidence for god, I think you need to explain that connection more fully.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.  There have been theoretical claims against I.D. that were then backed up by empirical evidence.  So far, every claim made by I.D. has been shown to be false.  What is your point? 

I'm not sure we're talking about the same things.  What is a "species transer"?  What do you mean by "taking it all into consideration"?  Why would there be more "mistakes and halfbreeds"?

Evolution is not random. 

Biblical stories have nothing to do with the claims of intelligent design.  Intelligent design refers to the development of the species on this planet, all of which occured before the time of Moses (statistically speaking.  technically it's not true, since evolution hasn't stopped, but the timeframe is 3,000 years against about 600 million). 

Please provide the support for your statement.  I don't know which article of national geographic or what date.  I suspect that the facts are not exactly as you describe them.

So something has to be god?  

The big bang theory is not related to I.D., which makes claims about the devolpment of species. 

If the creator wanted to make the universe look exactly like it would if there were no creator, then I would conlclude that the creator also wanted people to conclude that there is no creator.   

so provide the context. 

vaguest?  Like after 400 years someone coming to free the israelites?  Like Jesus being born when they said where they said by a virgin.  Then going around and fulfilling many prophesies that would otherwise be not possible by an average person?  333 prophesies I believe... Ref:  Check any Christian theological College library for that.  I'm sure there are quite a few books covering it.   Also like the killing of Christians for following Christ? 

yea... I guess they were kind of vague...

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2766799/k.C24F/DS700.htm

let me know what you think.  Then, maybe the direction of this conversation can start going somewhere.  

P.S.  I also suggest checking out http://www.equip.org.  yes it's a Christian site, but they know what they're talking about more than I do.  They may have answers that I'm unable to comment on or successfully reference to.  You can just type a topic in the search bar, articles will come up.  It's not the best resource, but it's the most imediate.  With that, I assure you everything I presented I have scrutinized myself before holding onto it.  I don't just "go by what 'they' tell me.  There is a reason why I'm not a part of any denomination of Christianity.  

For good reading, I suggest checking out "The Next Christiandom".  It's a book that breaks down the barriers of religion and goes to the source of many of the larger ones out there today.   

What do you mean by hearsay? Dr. Miller is a professor of biology. I think he is fairly well educated in that field. What sort of statements are you looking for?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Where is the "signature" that identifies creation, and how would you differentiate that from other "bands" to use your analogy?

Yes, there has been a lot of evidence provided to disprove I.D., I'm not sure what your point is.

This is a mischaracterization. Evolution does not say that all species will survive for eternity constantly changing. Further, there is not such a clear line between neanderthals and humans. Please look over the two sites I presented (they aren't that long).

If you study taxonomy you will realize that there is a lot of debate about which species are related to which, what creates the divisions between kingdoms/phyla/etc, and how to determine when two species are actually seperate. There aren't always clear lines.

When you have something specific, let us know. Until then we can assume there are none.

In this we are in agreement. They are very vague. How many of them made specific predictions? That is, the precise time and place. How many of them were made before the events occured instead of being "identified" after the fact?

You haven't presented any evidence at all yet. So far you've made some claims but completely failed to identify any sources that back up your claims.

Some historical or scientific facts would be very helpful to further your argument.

The article you linked to appears to be more descriptive than anything else. The one argument I did find is easliy refuted:

If you look at the Dover decision (which can be found here - it's a pdf), you will see that the proponents for I.D. presented no credible evidence to support the idea that it is anything but a religious tenet. The one scientific claim that was made was thoroughly refuted.

In other words, evidence for I.D. is "prohibited" from schools because there is no evidence for I.D., other than saying "god did it." Or, rather, "someone did it, but we're not naming names."

Unfortunately that site contains too much information for me to address in this media (a forum posting). I could just as easily refer you to talkorigins.org. If you have any specific articles or topics you want to discuss, please point them out.

Futher, if you don't understand the arguments that they are making, how do you know they are right? It doesn't make sense to me to say "oh, someone has shown it to be true" and just go with that. I don't just assume that Miller knows what he's talking about and say ok, you need to think about it and understand.

Pointing to references is a means of providing evidence for your claims so that people don't think you're just making things up. They are not an excuse fo an explanation.

@Caposkia

Wait... are you using the bible to support its own prophecies? Moving forward...

To use your example of rock bands: they are working with twelve notes within a Western tradition of music, generally limiting themselves to certain scales and chords. A typical rock song has four chords, I've heard. I'm not a musician, so errors here wouldn't surprise me, but my main point is that musicians are working within limitations imposed by physics and the human perception of sounds (ultra and infrasonic music would be popular with bats and whales, but not so much with us). In a similar sense, design as we apply is necessarily works within certain boundaries and limitations: our perception, our skills, our machining, our medium, physical limitations of materials, cost, time, weight, scale, etc. An omnipotent being, who creates everything, would have to first impose those limitations, arbitrarily mind you, on itself before design could commence. But, this being is omniscient, and it knows all possibilities before they occur; so it raises the question why such a being would need to be clever about engineering and overcoming limitations when it could choose not to create them in the first place. Finally, an omniscient being would also presumably know the possibilities of any action it could take, including the drafting of physical principles and the ways around them. There would be no motive to act, because acting would alter nothing of the being's perception. And, as has been mentioned before, a deity that can grant free will is no longer omniscient or omnipotent; a deity who can't isn't omnipotent to begin with.

I guess the same that you are... I've presented a pretty clear counter arguement from a professor from the mid-west and that was very quickly dismissed as him having bad sources... or at least questioning his sources... so I guess what were this professor's sources??? 

My point is that there has been just as much evidence that I'm aware of that supports I.D.  I will not say disproves evolution because as I've said in the past, it's very easily proven things evolve, the Bible even says so.  

you're right, there aren't always clear lines, which is my point.  Regardless of where humans came from, there still has to be evidence, not so much living evidence always, but usually.  Evidence however, that there were in betweens.  There theoretically should be some neanderthal apes (or chimps, wherever your theory takes you) out there as well as neanderthal humans out there aside from the neanderthal mix breed.   

What am I saying?  well, let me use your site references for example.  Site 1 Almost imediately mentions; "The Neanderthals were a very distinct group from earlier, later, and contemporary populations".  So there was in fact, a distinct difference from other apes and humans.  At least that's what I'm understanding... Another thing that site mentions is; "The Neanderthal face, in particular, is distinctly different from anything that came before or after."
Again, signifying that they were a very different breed.  So there really isn't anything out there that shows a smooth evolution from neanderthals from apes, or neanderthals to humans.  

The site does go into great detail about the different types of neanderthals out there, comparing different locations proving neanderthal races.  Also using time frames presenting the evolution of neanderthals from old times to newer times.  The ultimate conclustion of the site is that there really is no evidence that neanderthals evolved into humans. e.g.      

"These remains have been claimed as evidence that the late Neanderthals were not evolving towards the modern human condition, but have also been used to claim that they were evolving in the modern human condition."

... ultimately leaving the finding inconclusive.  They try to support the fact that neanderthals still could have evolved into humans by pulling out a theory and claiming that only "in support of" that theory does it show neanderthals evolving into humans.  The problem is, there's no evidence to conclude that claim.  

Site 2 is just a more vague description of what site 1 was saying in detail.  They just had pictures.   

I was being sarcastic.  I pointed out some very specific dates. e.g. 400 years and the time frame for the flood which by the way history confirms. ref:  Nat. Geo., Nova,  plus any history book referencing to natural occurances of that time and that location... 

er... I think you need to reread some of the conversation, I've referenced to a few different sources, sites, and a professor for one particular topic.  The difference here is I present to you fact that can actually be researched.  Most of what I've gotten back has been theory at best.  

disclaimer:  I didn't mean that to sound rude either. I realize after reading through it that it could come across that way.  I was just making a constructive point.  

like?

it was suppose to show the same challenge being taken toward non-believers that non-believers seem to be taking toward Christians.  Granted her argument was weak, but there are many out there who can and will hold their ground and show you how they are doing so as well.  

I skimmed through that, basically they took any scientific attempt out of it and completely turned it into a religious debate.  If it's so clearly refutable, then why not enforce the understanding of those sciences by bringing it into the schools to prove what true research can result in??? Could it be that it's not as clearly refutable as people might want to believe?

I never said I didn't understand the argument. If I didn't I wouldn't bring it up, or I would strait out say I don't understand it... but I'm referencing there because I know they know more than I do about the topic.  Are you expecting me to know every last detail of everything I present?  I'm not expecting that of you.  nor have you presented that to me.  

yes, true. I have pointed to many references through this blog.  Apparently not as many as you want, but I don't have a lot of time in my day to retrace all my steps.  I've given you a few main sources that I know reference to further information if you are interested.  I'm not going to do all the research for you, if you are truely interested in what is being presented, you will take the time to look yourself.  It will mean more if you get to read it, watch it, or hear it yourself and not hear it from me.   

Here I'll give you a head start on one Check out  

uh... yea!!! heh... but I've also already provided historical evidence of those happenings. 

So put God in a box and that makes your argument hold water.  Sure, many have used that through the years... though it hasn't really gotten them far.  

You say that rock bands are working with limitations... sure I agree... so then why are those limitations distinct to only one band?  Why doesn't aerosmith sound like Metallica? and I'm not talking about voice, i'm talking about instrumentation.  Metallica could if they wanted to sound like Aerosmith, I know, I've heard them play a cover.  It comes down to their style.  

Who said God had to manuver around limitations?  You did, you put him in the box right?  Why couldn't it just be God's style?  Because He has proven that He didn't do stuff because of limitations He has imposed?  Ok, sure. 

 Who said He couldn't do things?  You did, you put him in that box.  God did make limitations, that He promised us he would not break.  I'm obviously getting into his actions with humans now.  He could ultimately be dishonest and break them at any point, do what He wants, but He won't... not can't... won't.  He loves us and therefore will not break His promises, nor His limitations He has set forth.  

But your god's in a box.  Therefore you have authority over him to say what he can and cannot do making him nothing more than a human frailty.   

Are you referring to " J. Galanek"?

First, what college is this person a professor at? What degree does this person have?

Second, his argument was not dismissed for having "bad sources," it was dismissed as having nothing to with evolution. The argument put forth was that evolution is far too remote to have occured accidentally. This has already been shown to be a misrepresentation of evolution. You need to find someone who presents an argument that actually helps your case, not one that attacks a strawman of evolution.

Where is the evidence?

If you want to use your analogy, you need to address the problems in it. Where is the "signature" that identifies creation, and how would you differentiate that from other "bands" to use your analogy? 

At this point I'm confused by your completely contradictory statements.

So the fact that a neanderthal appears to be somewhere between an ape and a human is evidence that there has never been a species that appears to be between an ape and a human? I'm not sure exactly what your argument is.

Yes, the neanderthals are different from humans, and apes, and this is why they are currently classified as a separate species. You are confusing the issues by using saying that they are a "very different breed."

For example, there are different breeds of dogs. Some of these different breeds can be crossed, despite the fact that they could be described as "very different breeds," because they are very different breeds of dogs. From a certain standpoint, comparing them to, say, a plant, all breeds of dogs are virtually identical.

Right. It is my current understanding that there is still some disagreement regarding the evolution of humans. There are some scholars that theorize neanderthals all died out, and some that think they combined with the other proto-humans of the time to become what are currently known as humans.

here is another reference with some information on the development of humans.

All you seem to be saying is that we don't know exactly how humans evolved, which is no different from what anyone else says. How does this support intelligent design?

Very specific? "Like after 400 years someone coming to free the israelites?" does not seem specific to me. It looks like a vague statement not backed up by any explanation whatsoever.

Saying "national geographic" is not a source. National geographic has been publishing its magazine for over 100 years. How ca you can expect anyone to locate one specific article you read?

What you've "gotten back" included research, presentations, and transcripts containing information specific to the topic at hand. I have presented you facts that you don't need to research because I have found them for you. You have presented claims without any sort of backup.

While it is occasionally useful to learn theories that have been shown to be false, generally there is so much actual information to be taught that even those don't receive enough time. Intelligent design could be given about as much time as larmarckian evolution, since both show flawed views, but there certainly shouldn't be any emphasis placed on it, any more than we would place emphasis on the ether as the medium through which light travels.

It's not my job to do your research for you.  Supposedly you did research already, but at this point that's just another unfounded statement.  Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, but you have had ample time to find at least some of these articles you have read.

I have done a lot of reading, and I do not know where you are getting your facts from. So far your arguments are completely unsupported.

Ok, so I went to the nova site and searched for Moses. Sixteen pages were returned, and none of them support any of your arguments, the closest being researching the lineage of the lost tribes of isreal.  Until you can identify one, I have no choice but to assume there aren't any.

Using one source to confirm itself is not valid. That it came from many, many unknown authors doesn't help; quite the contrary.

Can you bullet point that for me? I don't have time to read three text-heavy pages right now.

I'm interpreting the definition via dialectics, which is all most theologians have done anyway. You can say the god is too complex, or too unlimited, or too whatever, but you're just playing with words unless you can demonstrate a reality to which these ideas correspond. Just because you can imagine a thing too complicated to understand doesn't make it exist. It's even worse than that, since you're not imagining what something is, just anticipation of an unknown degree to which it diverges from what is known. I have no idea what you mean by it getting them very far. It's neither probable nor demonstrated, so the only thing that distinguishes it from ideas that have been totally discarded is tradition.

Thankfully, their sound is irrelevant to this conversation. The point is that those notes they use in their songs can be produced and recognized due to physical principles they have no control over. Not true of an omnipotent being.

Nope, anyone invoking the idea of an omnipotent designer is describing a self-contradiction. Calling a god a designer implies limitations outside of its control.

I don't think you understand how anthropocentrism plays into talking about an omnipotent being who supposedly created everything from nothing: energy, matter, particles, waves, various interdependent physical principles, a massive and possibly multidimensional cosmos; and going on to compliment it for helping author a book.

I said he'd have no reason to do things, because he wouldn't profit from it in any way. There is nothing an omniscient, omnipotent being could accomplish because there would be nothing to discover and nothing to overcome.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. You're stealing from materialism with the assumption that an omnipotent, omniscient being, who is responsible for everything, would have any motive to act whatsoever. If an omnimax being has reason to act, then it isn't such.

The "biology professor" happens to have a degree in biology.  I'll have to double check on the college, but it's obviously in the mid-west.  

Now that we're past stating the obvious, I'll try to site my sources in APA format from now on.  (sarcasm)

Why don't I just send you the links instead of telling you.  This way you can't claim the source doesn't exist. I of course can't send you books, so I'll try to avoid quoting them as much as possible, though If I do. I will give you an apa format for reference. Below are links to other people who share Prof. G's view;

http://foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_fossils.asp

http://members.cox.net/wwcw/q-evol4.html

http://www.projesus.com/Flaworfact.html

BTW, projesus.com references to their information source; http://www.equip.org.  I"m pretty sure I've given that site as a reference... Yes, I know... too much information on that site.  They do cover a lot.   

Only theoretically though (strawman walk both ways)

what are you looking for??? I mean specifically, obviously what was already presented isn't working for ya.  

are you saying that in order for creation to have a "distinguishable signature" there would have to be another creator to compare it to???  What would you compare it to? something that people made up?  

I think a good signature that there is a creator is the fact that only theoretical science can even remotely hold a light up to it.  

I contradicted myself?  I'm sorry, as I've said in the past, sometimes I have trouble explaining what I'm trying to say.  Please show me my contradictory statements and I'll clarify my intentions.  My intentions I assure you were not contradictory.   

In order for evolution to "not be random" there would have to be transitional fossils showing the transition from each species or breed.  Out of the 250,000 fossils we have on record today, there is no evidence of transitional fossils.  Ref: see the links given above.  

confusion of the issue aside, where are the transitional fossils. Ref: see links above.

and yet... they're still considered dogs.  Are we still considered monkeys?  I'm of course not referencing to the band here.  

well, of the 250,000 fos... eh... never mind; 

how does it support evolution?

would you have prefered something like "400 years from now on February 32nd at 3:43:23 p.m. Israelite Standard Time"?  I guess I don't understand what you mean by specifics.  I think calling 400 years later is pretty specific.  It leaves a fairly large margin of error. It's a tad bit better than I could do on predicting anything.   

There are amazing advances in our technological world these days, when I say something like Nat. Geo, or Nova, you can actually go onto their websites now and do a search for the topic, and results will show up from their archives.  Just to test that, I did it myself... results came up.  

and your specific information you have presented has been theory based only.  How about some historical and scientific evidence that truely disproves I.D.  Speculation is easy, we could be here till we die, but when it comes down to hard core fact, there's no way around it.  It's there in plain site and there'd be no way I could counterargue it logically.

I have presented sources for at least some of these articles I've read.  Most of them are not at my fingertips, so I've had to do some quick thinking to get you sources. 

It's interesting to me that you didn't find anything on the nova site to support what i was saying.  I was careful about what I gave you and in fact went on the site myself to double check my reference and did the search myself... and low and behold the source came up.  

I have a life outside of RRS and therefore don't have a lot of time to be running around libraries finding all the research that took me years to do and conclude.  This information I provide is not something I came up with overnight, nor was it just randomly told to be by some corporate religion.  I will try to get myself to a library sometime soon to see if I can find other research beyond what I have already provided you.  

I can't understand how you've legitimately researched and found nothing when I've legitimately researched and found tons of information.  yea, I know, where is it.  Please be patient with me as I find it for you.

To help me stay on track, if you wouldn't mind.  Please make me a list of specific research you are looking for as well.  We've talked about a lot and I'm not sure what you are questioning be it that when it was all originally presented with the sources in question, your imediate response wasn't that the sources weren't detailed enough, but that it wasn't credible to my argument.  I don't want to be wasting my time with arguments you think are not credible.   

Is this the guy you're referencing?

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/04/virginia_tech_massacre_11.html 

I hear ya.  I feel bad that I can't get on here as often as I'd like.  I'm happy to see people are ultimately being patient with me.  it's about 3/4 of the way down, maybe a little less on the 2nd page

Submitted by caposkia on Thu, 2007-10-11 16:04.

the references are not the original nor the sole source for the information, but they do provide the information.

There lies a boundary few ever cross, though I'm not afraid to.  I'm thinking this God does have limitations beond our understanding.  Bible says on the seventh day he rested... why would a limitless being need to rest, or want to for that matter?

The reason why people avoid this boundary is becasue it's crossing into trying o understand something outside our universe, outside our understanding or comprehension.  If you look at our God as limitless, our basis for understanding is of course only what we can see from the universe he created us in.  Sure, I can use that as an excuse because we can't comprehend anything beyond that.  But if there is a creator, would that not be the case???

Another reason that boundary is avoided is because it really brings no progress to a conversation between a believer and a non-believer.  

what does that have to do with God having a style? By the way, the theory about his creation isn't always that he created everything from nothing though some will say so.  Others claim that he must have had all the matter in the universe already to his discression, this again would cause him to have a limit to what he could do or make, thus making him not omnicient in the eyes of a non-believer.  Again, digging into a realm of understanding beyond our own and again bringing no progress to our conversation.  

Just like there's no reason for everyone to have kids these days.  I know I want kids some day, but it's not because I fear the world of humans will die out if I don't.  I guess I have no reason for wanting kids... except maybe love? 

so because God is omniscient, he should do what he pleases and disregard humans needs and wants, go back on his word, change creation at a glance and change us while he's at it, who cares if we don't like it.  Honestly, I wouldn't follow a God like that.  Can you explain why love makes beings do things??? and I mean true love, not just some materialistic false sense of love.