A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

Not only cherry picking but ignoring the reality.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

“While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.”

And here we are, having to contend once again with another Christ myth theory supporter when even the critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the very claim those truly ignorant of history keep making....

This is par for their (spiritually blind) course. 1/3 of Earth acknowledges Jesus as Lord, another 1/3 as a sinless prophet/Lord of Judgment, and a few atheists with laptops don't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is par for their (spiritually blind) course. 1/3 of Earth acknowledges Jesus as Lord, another 1/3 as a sinless prophet/Lord of Judgment, and a few atheists with laptops don't.

Do you think an appeal to popularity makes something true?
One billion people follow Hinduism, the world's oldest religion. What do you make of that? Does it make you "spiritually blind?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you think an appeal to popularity makes something true?
One billion people follow Hinduism, the world's oldest religion. What do you make of that? Does it make you "spiritually blind?"

Oh no, It's you all that keep appealing to popularity when it comes to evolution. We fully recognize popularity has nothing to do with whether something is true or not.

Just as you are appealing to popularity to declare it is the oldest religion when they don't even know when it was founded.... That's just "popular" opinion.

But they also told you "This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE. Long, long, long after creation and after people had started falling away from the One true God.....

Don't confuse popularity of opinion of a religion forming after 500 BCE as being the oldest religion, when the Israelite's worshiped the One true God long before that.... Some Christianity is just the continued worship of the One true God who sent the means for salvation.... Some can't even get that right.... don't be fooled into thinking for example i think all Christians worship the One true God.... or are even really Christians.... The popularity or their number of followers accounts for nothing....

Narrow is the road...... so probably the least popular Christian sect has more correct.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker, I want you to put aside prior arguments and disagreements on every level for a minute, and I just want you to think, very carefully, about the above statement. Look at it again and remind yourself "poodles are one of the 100 breeds of dogs", and you should very promptly realize the significant logical contradiction of what you've just written here.

Have you noticed it?

From your incorrect viewpoint of less information to more information, you might "think" there is a contradiction. I can see how you, who starts with the totally incorrect starting point would come to this conclusion....

You are under the incorrect assumption the genome started with less information and led to more information. While the reverse is the reality. it started with greater information (hence possible variation) and has led to less information (hence less diversity) through mutations damaging the genome......

Hence 100 breeds of dogs from primeval wolves, and less and less and less possible as time goes on....

So, have you noticed yours???? it's your entire flawed starting worldview.... but your only capable of seeing the world through your flawed worldview....

Yes, poodles are one of the 100 breeds from wolves, and there are less and less and less produced with every divergence from the primeval wolves. With the later variations being able to produce almost no variation from them due to loss of information...... unless combined with others that haven't lost the same information, but different information.

Which supports my contentions and not yours. Greater variation to less variation.... But your worldview precludes the reality and so you think there is a contradiction when none exists.... The Poodle is one of those variations, but it itself is not capable of producing the same amount of variation because the genome is not becoming more complex, but less....

Accept reality..... You simply don't like the point of my argument and so want to nit pick at what is actually nothing at all, because the reality supports my overall contention and falsifies yours.

I understand, I really do.... but do you????

 

[ImmortalFlame]

From your incorrect viewpoint of less information to more information, you might "think" there is a contradiction. I can see how you, who starts with the totally incorrect starting point would come to this conclusion....

You are under the incorrect assumption the genome started with less information and led to more information. While the reverse is the reality. it started with greater information (hence possible variation) and has led to less information (hence less diversity) through mutations damaging the genome......

But there isn't "less diversity", there is MORE, because each of those 100 variations can produce numerous variations. That's an INCREASE in biological diversity.

Hence 100 breeds of dogs from primeval wolves, and less and less and less possible as time goes on....

You do realize that there is more than one type of wolf too, right? In the future, you could say "we got 1000 different breeds of early dogs, but their descendants can only produce 10 different variations of what they are!".

So, have you noticed yours???? it's your entire flawed starting worldview.... but your only capable of seeing the world through your flawed worldview....

I asked you to drop your prior arguments and disagreements on every level just to objectively assess your own argument on a simple, logical level.

Clearly, you are not capable of doing that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But there isn't "less diversity", there is MORE, because each of those 100 variations can produce numerous variations. That's an INCREASE in biological diversity.

No they can’t. You can’t get as much variation from the Poodle as you did from the wolf.

Only by combining the Poodle with another variation can a different variation be produced. The Poodle on its own will produce only Poodles.

And each subsequent variation will produce less variation.

And all will remain the same species....

You do realize that there is more than one type of wolf too, right? In the future, you could say "we got 1000 different breeds of early dogs, but their descendants can only produce 10 different variations of what they are!".

More than one breed of wolf now..... but genetics has traced the dog to “one” wolf type, ruling out influence from others.....

I’ve already agreed the original wolf pair had greater diversity and so was able to produce different breeds of wolves.

“Of what they are” we totally agree on that telling statement. Not something different than what they are....

I asked you to drop your prior arguments and disagreements on every level just to objectively assess your own argument on a simple, logical level.

Clearly, you are not capable of doing that.

I just agreed with your conclusion that 100’s to 10 is less and that each remains what they are....

What more do you want?

Oh, that was my argument too, so we drop your own conclusion that agreed with my prior argument? Because it agreed with my prior argument????

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you think an appeal to popularity makes something true?
One billion people follow Hinduism, the world's oldest religion. What do you make of that? Does it make you "spiritually blind?"

An ad populum doesn't ensure truth. You are correct.

I have some thoughts on Hinduism, starting with, it isn't the world's oldest religion. Adam and Eve walked with God, Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No they can’t. You can’t get as much variation from the Poodle as you did from the wolf.

But you CAN get MORE diversity from dogs than you can from wolves, per your own logic.

Only by combining the Poodle with another variation can a different variation be produced. The Poodle on its own will produce only Poodles.

So you didn't realize that there are different kinds of poodle?

And each subsequent variation will produce less variation.

And all will remain the same species....

Please demonstrate this assertion when your own logic completely contradicts it.

More than one breed of wolf now..... but genetics has traced the dog to “one” wolf type, ruling out influence from others.....

So, one type of wolf evolved into 100 different breeds of dog, each of which can produce its own different sub-breeds.

So, where's this lack of evolution producing diversity that you asserted?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh no, It's you all that keep appealing to popularity when it comes to evolution. We fully recognize popularity has nothing to do with whether something is true or not.

Um, nope. We appeal to EVIDENCE when it comes to evolution.

Nice attempt to turn that around onto others though.

Just as you are appealing to popularity to declare it is the oldest religion when they don't even know when it was founded.... That's just "popular" opinion.

Um, nope again. I was countering your point, which you don't seem to remember now.

But they also told you "This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE. Long, long, long after creation and after people had started falling away from the One true God.....

Okay, so now suddenly you don't think popular opinion matters anymore. Just when you were trying to make your point. I see.

Don't confuse popularity of opinion of a religion forming after 500 BCE as being the oldest religion, when the Israelite's worshiped the One true God long before that.... Some Christianity is just the continued worship of the One true God who sent the means for salvation.... Some can't even get that right.... don't be fooled into thinking for example i think all Christians worship the One true God.... or are even really Christians.... The popularity or their number of followers accounts for nothing....

Narrow is the road...... so probably the least popular Christian sect has more correct.....

You can come up with whatever excuses you like, I guess. But now you've contradicted your own appeal to popularity while trying to pretend it was others that were employing that logical fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

An ad populum doesn't ensure truth. You are correct.

I have some thoughts on Hinduism, starting with, it isn't the world's oldest religion. Adam and Eve walked with God, Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

There is no evidence that Adam and Eve existed as the first two people, or that they were real at all. Or that Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you CAN get MORE diversity from dogs than you can from wolves, per your own logic.

No. I said 100 breeds of dogs came from wolves, but you cant get 100 breeds from the Poodle....

So you didn't realize that there are different kinds of poodle?

99? since the Poodle is one of the 100 from wolves we wont count it, just say 99 different kinds of Poodles.... or less????

Please demonstrate this assertion when your own logic completely contradicts it.

Only because somehow you think 3 or 4 different poodles is greater variety than 99 different breeds from wolves.....

So, one type of wolf evolved into 100 different breeds of dog, each of which can produce its own different sub-breeds.

technically that would be sub-species, but we wouldn't want to call dog breeds that since we know their lineage and would imply some other called species should be called subspecies instead. Why be consistent in terminology, right?

So, where's this lack of evolution producing diversity that you asserted?

Ever seen a Husky evolve into a Chinook? Or did it happen by good old mixing of genomes with a mastiff? Why throw the word evolution in there when they haven't evolved into anything????

it's not my fault you confuse the natural diversity capable of already existing within the genome as meaning evolution from fish to man...... Oh, and fish to dog.....

Fish diversify into other types of fish within each Kind. As man has diversified into different types within his kind. but for some reason we wouldn't want to call the races subspecies, even if we do it for every other creature.... except dogs..... Wouldn't want some man to get an idea his subspecies might be more evolved than another. Even if that is what the theory of evolution predicts......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no evidence that Adam and Eve existed as the first two people, or that they were real at all. Or that Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

Yah we know, people and apes just came from the same missing common ancestor according to evolutionists and that there is no evidence of it existing. But yet you still believe.....

Not sure about you, but doesn't even your evolutionary tree predict less and less and less as one goes backwards? Ahhh, so you can believe in one lifeform coming from dust evolving into billions, but we can't believe in at least two branching out to what we see for every Kind?

At least we are being logical and only asking that you accept two for each Kind mixing genomes to create variety within the Kind. While you ask that cloning produce all the different kinds........

 

[gnostic]

An ad populum doesn't ensure truth. You are correct.

I have some thoughts on Hinduism, starting with, it isn't the world's oldest religion. Adam and Eve walked with God, Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

The Rig Veda exist as early as 1500 BCE, no such Hebrew writings like Genesis or Exodus exist at this time.

We do have Hebrew writings existing as early as 10th century BCE, like the Gezer Calendar, but this has nothing to do with David or Solomon, and there are no Psalms or Proverbs, nothing that screams “scriptural” in the biblical sense.

The oldest evidence of the biblical texts, is a scroll-like silver amulet, found in the Ketef Hinnom cave, dated to somewhere between Josiah’s reign and the fall of Jerusalem, hence around 630 to 587 BCE. They called it the Silver Scrolls, and contained a passage from Numbers 6, relating to the Priestly Blessings.

There is nothing older than this.

If you were to compare the Vedas and this Silver Scrolls, 1500 BCE is definitely older than the late 7th century BCE.

And like SkepticThinker said, there are no evidences that support the existence of Adam and Eve.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no evidence that Adam and Eve existed as the first two people, or that they were real at all. Or that Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

Depends on your definition of evidence, I guess, I cannot seem to find evidence that YOU exist, or aren't a skeptic POE, or aren't me typing autonomously while I dream.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Depends on your definition of evidence, I guess, I cannot seem to find evidence that YOU exist, or aren't a skeptic POE, or aren't me typing autonomously while I dream.

Gimme a break. We've already been over this before. But if you want to go that way, there's no evidence of anything existing at all. That way is a waste of time, which I'm sure you already realize.

Here's a usable definition for EVIDENCE:


evidence

NOUN
mass noun

• 1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

evidence | Definition of evidence in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So like I said, there's no evidence that Adam and Even existed as the first two people or that they were real at all. Or that Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.
Unless of course, you have some evidence that nobody has ever seen before?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gimme a break. We've already been over this before. But if you want to go that way, there's no evidence of anything existing at all. That way is a waste of time, which I'm sure you already realize.

Here's a usable definition for EVIDENCE:


evidence

NOUN
mass noun

• 1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

evidence | Definition of evidence in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So like I said, there's no evidence that Adam and Even existed as the first two people or that they were real at all. Or that Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.
Unless of course, you have some evidence that nobody has ever seen before?

Going by your standard of evidence:

There are no documents that Adam and Eve "even existed"? (Hint: OT.)

There are no witnesses claiming to have known Adam and Eve, and reported on their movements? (Hint: See the NT.)

Of course there are! Your REAL issue is you don't believe the biblical documents are reliable.

Please be clearer next time with your skeptical inference.

 

[metis]

So like I said, there's no evidence that Adam and Even existed as the first two people or that they were real at all. Or that Judaism/Christianity is the world's oldest faith.

Indeed as even the names "Adam", "Eve", and "Eden" are symbolic names.

Also. we know that even Neanderthals had religious faith as we see that evidenced by their ceremonial burials in Europe with indications of their belief in an afterlife. And we also find areas where Cro-Magnon lived whereas there are pictographs and foot-falls in what appears to be religious dance held deep in a cave.

 

[Bear Wild]

Going by your standard of evidence:

There are no documents that Adam and Eve "even existed"? (Hint: OT.)

There are no witnesses claiming to have known Adam and Eve, and reported on their movements? (Hint: See the NT.)

Of course there are! Your REAL issue is you don't believe the biblical documents are reliable.

Please be clearer next time with your skeptical inference.

You really do not believe that Adam and Eve are real do you? They are symbolic and only symbolic for a specific religion. Biblical documents are myths and you must know that by now. The are reliable for teaching not history as is clearly obvious by what is said.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Going by your standard of evidence:

There are no documents that Adam and Eve "even existed"? (Hint: OT.)

There are no witnesses claiming to have known Adam and Eve, and reported on their movements? (Hint: See the NT.)

Of course there are! Your REAL issue is you don't believe the biblical documents are reliable.

Please be clearer next time with your skeptical inference.

At best, Adam and Eve are a claim without corroboration. Along with the rest of Genesis, they are metaphorical.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You really do not believe that Adam and Eve are real do you? They are symbolic and only symbolic for a specific religion. Biblical documents are myths and you must know that by now. The are reliable for teaching not history as is clearly obvious by what is said.

Jesus claimed to have spoken with Adam and other patriarchs, personally. OT appearances of Christ are called "hierophanies" by theologians.

Paul claims in Romans 5, "As in Adam all died, so in Christ all are made alive," and does nearly a chapter on Jesus as Adam II.

Adam is literal in the Bible. Stop insulting our mutual parents, please!