INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Common descent does not have anything to do with abiogenesis. 99.86% of American experts, the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent.

When I say I am done with a subject I mean it. At least for now I am bored to tears with biology.

Yes, and so do many Christians, including William Lane Craig, and even the author of the book that you asked me to read.

I have always been for the PROPER and QUALIFIED use of numbers and authority. The point is you have switched sides.

I haven't defected at all. I told you that experts write science textbooks, not amateurs, and that even though experts are sometimes wrong, they are the best that we have, and that experts are often right. I also told you that if 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it.

The chance experts are right depends on the proximity and quality of the evidence. Evolutions older parts are in the worst possible category of both. Starting from the beginning of recorded history my skepticism about most things increases as you go backwards.

People can only choose to accept, or reject things based upon what is widely known, or widely accepted at a given time. 60-70 years ago, most experts accepted common descent, and the same is true today.

That is not true except among Berkley type scholars. Even today most Americans believe God had a role in genetic history. Out of time again sorry.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: There is easily lots of valid evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. For example, my post 3639 reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since he does not have free will.

My post 3640 on the same page reasonably proves that God does not provide reasonable evidence for everyone who has heard enough about the Gospels to be accountable, which reasonably proves that God does not exist since a loving God would be fair.

My post 3641 reasonably proves that it is just as possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter as it is that he is who the Bible says he is.

We have discussed those topics before, but we need to discuss them some more in details for at least several months. It takes a long time to adequately discuss some topics.

 

[The Adept]

and the anti-sex God could not have been the creator of the natural.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes, and so do many Christians, including William Lane Craig, and even the author of the book that you asked me to read.

I have always been for the PROPER and QUALIFIED use of numbers and authority.

I believe that the vast majority of experts, including the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts are far better qualified to assess the proper and qualified use of numbers and authority than you are, and to assess whether or not common descent is probably true.

The point is you have switched sides.

Which post was that? I recently said that the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent. How is that switching sides?

I haven't defected at all. I told you that experts write science textbooks, not amateurs, and that even though experts are sometimes wrong, they are the best that we have, and that experts are often right. I also told you that if 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it.

The chance experts are right depends on the proximity and quality of the evidence. Evolution's older parts are in the worst possible category of both. Starting from the beginning of recorded history my skepticism about most things increases as you go backwards.

As I said, "I believe that the vast majority of experts, including the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts are far better qualified to assess the proper and qualified use of numbers and authority than you are, and to assess whether or not common descent is probably true."

I said "if 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it."

That is true.

Wikipedia says:

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.

If those experts supported creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it.

If you actually knew a lot about biology, you would be willing to debate it with experts, you would be willing to critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's thorough, detailed article on common descent at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, and you would be willing to discuss what I quoted from Michael Behe in my post 3648, but you won't since you know that you do not know enough about biology to adequately discuss common descent. You have no clue about much of what Theobald's article says, and apparently, you do not understand what I quoted from Michael Behe.

For example the Burgess shale that proved what I stated above was found by one of the most prominent Paleontologist named Walcott. He found 60,000 fossils that proved all major body types exploded on the geological scene. He sent them to the Smithsonian. That is where I got that. However it gets even more interesting. The president of the Smithsonian believed in gradual evolution. Made one announcement and promptly buried all 60,000 of the most important fossils ever found in backrooms and closets. They were only rediscovered by a student many years later. So much for scientific integrity. That story gets even weirder and Steven Gould gets involved and makes the treachery even worse. I can tell you the whole thing sometime if you want.

Well of course you will tell me the whole thing sometime since you know that I do not know very much about biology, but you will not tell it to some experts who accept common descent since you know that you would embarrass yourself. As I have told you before, there are some problems with common descent, but most experts say that there is far more evidence that supports common descent than there is evidence that opposes it.

Are you suggesting that the Burgess shale discovery partly discredits common descent? You certainly would not contact Michael Behe and tell him that common descent is questionable partly because of the Burgess shale.

The more that you discuss common descent, the more you will have to defend, and the more it will become obvious to people that you do not know what you are talking about. The same thing happened in the threads on homosexuality, and the Tyre prophecy.

Regarding integrity, are you questioning the integrity of Michael Behe, and other Christian experts who accept common descent? Please do not say that your only interest is naturalistic common descent since you have questioned any kind of common descent a number of times, including recently.

Are you going to make any more posts in the thread on the Tyre prophecy? You have made some false, and illogical arguments in that thread. Even some of your own sources disagree with you about certain issues, some Christian sources that I quoted agree with me regarding certain issues, including the distinguished college professor John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University, and you even tried to discredit one of your own sources.

 

[Agnostic75]

You certainly know what a composition fallacy is, which is judging a whole based upon some of the parts, and that nowhere near all homosexuals have risks that are high enough to justify abstinence.

I do not know of a single point I made about homosexuality that contained anything that had anything to do with a composition of anything. My argument consisted of two points which had nothing to do with extrapolations from individual truths to generalizations about groups.

In the main thread on homosexuality, after you were proven wrong about a number of issues, you conveniently tried to limit further discussions to the following:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Regarding item 1, homosexuality does increase suffering, but your claim quite obviously only applies to homosexuals who cause increases in suffering. Many homosexuals do not cause increases in suffering, and many of them are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for many years, but in your first post in that thread, and in some other posts, you said that your recommended solution was that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. That was definitely a composition fallacy since a composition fallacy is judging the whole based upon some of the parts.

So, you provably, and definitely made a composition fallacy since you judged all homosexuals based upon some homosexuals. Essentially, you are trying to fix some cars that aren't broke since many homosexuals are healthy, have no STDS, are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for many years. You just couldn't stand to admit that some homosexuals are doing quite well, and are prospering physically, and emotionally, so you tried to get away with making an utterly absurd, and unfair claim that all of them should practice abstinence for the rest of their lives.

You don't even have any valid religious arguments against homosexuality since you cannot reasonably prove that God inspired Scriptures that mention same-sex behavior. It is well-known that the Bible probably contains at least some interpolations. In addition, Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament canon at http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html shows that the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

Regarding item 2, homosexuality is easily justified for healthy homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for many years. In addition, having safe sex provides health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

No major medical organization recommends that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, including the CDC.

Since you said that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence, such as heterosexual black Americans, heterosexual black Africans, and heterosexuals who live in poverty, you do not have a fair basis for saying that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. In addition, you never gave any good reasons why women over 45 years of age need to have sex since they do not need to have sex in order to maintain the population in most countries.

I am not debating this any longer and I have said so many times.

That is an example of where you become evasive when you get into trouble, which happened a number of times in the main thread on homosexuality. Your evasiveness does not change the facts of what I said about fairness. You might as well claim that lying is wrong for some people, and right for other people. You said that any deaths at all from homosexuality it too many, but you excluded some groups from recommended abstinence that have high risks. That is unfair, and immoral.

Your refusal to reply to my argument does not change the fact that you do not have a moral basis to claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, but not all other high risk groups. That is hypocrisy.

I did not see any debate at all about homosexuality.

Oh sure you did, and many times. For example, you said that if you were asked to provide evidence for your claim that genetics probably has little to do with homosexuality, you would provide it. I asked you to provide evidence, and you refused to provide it. I provided lots of scientific evidence that shows that genetics is an important part of homosexuality, and you conveniently refused to reply to most of it. I can provide you with a number of other examples if you wish. In addition, in that thread, or in some other thread, you said that there were successful reparative clinics in many parts of the world, but you conveniently did not mention that names of any, which is not a surprise since the president and founder of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International said that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and that 99% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual identity. I told you that the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals, which would not be the case if genetics was not an important part of homosexuality. You conveniently refused to comment on that even though I posted it at least several times.

I looked hard for one.

No you didn't, and I can prove it with many post numbers if you wish.

I expected there to be one based on how popular the argument for it has become. I expected that I would be completely unprepared and incapable of finding any methodology by which it could be condemned without appeal to theology. I was unprepared for that argument, yet I was surprised to find no preparation was necessary and no argument was available to challenge my points. Pointing out my unpreparedness for that argument only makes your failure more glaring.

On the contrary, I just proved that you easily lost the debates about homosexuality. You cannot get away with limiting your arguments to two points since from a secular moral perspective, there are not any doubts whatsoever that no action is wrong unless there are better options, and abstinence for life is most certainly not a better option for homosexuals who are healthy, and are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for many years. Your two points imply that homosexuality is wrong, which means that it is up to you to provide reasonable solutions, and you did not provide any reasonable solutions for all homosexuals, just homosexuals who practice unsafe sex.

You were confused many times in the main thread on homosexuality, which is why you conveniently vacated it. For example, when I told you that it was up to you to provide reasonable solutions for homosexuality, you said that it was not up to you to provide any, even though you later recommended abstinence for all homosexuals a number of times, and you even forgot that you had recommended abstinence for all homosexuals in your first post in the thread. Now, you are confused in the thread on the Tyre prophecy. In that thread, you said that debating me was like herding cats. Since you said that, my arguments have gotten better, and you are confused about a number of issues.

Research has shown that some homosexuals who tried long term abstinence got worse, and needed medical help that increased their medical costs. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that long term abstinence is not a good thing for homosexuals to do if they get worse, and have increased medical expenses.

If your God had not needlessly created what became the AIDS virus, and infected some primates with it, and allowed it to be transferred to humans, AIDS would not exist. Surely God's creation of what became the AIDS virus was not necessary in order for him to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal, but of course, he does not exist, although some other God might exist.

Do you know of any fair, worthy, and just goal that a loving God would not be able to achieve without creating what became the AIDS virus?

You can't really be concerned with sickness, and deaths since God had caused lots of sickness, and deaths.

 

[godnotgod]

Good points, imo. Let me just add that we see things having a "beginning" and an "end" only because we draw rather arbitrary lines of separation, whereas the reality appears to actually be a continuous chain of causes and effects.

You're still in linear time. But when we strip away the concept of time, we are left only with this moment right now that is still and infinite. Within this stillness, imagine, instead of a point of beginning, an unfolding from nothingness, and then a return to nothingness, with each unfolding somewhat different than the previous versions. And so, some might ask: 'how can something come out of nothing?', but that question is only valid if the something in question is actually something. It may be an illusion of a higher order than your ordinary illusion. The fact that the atom is over 99.9% empty space, and that particle collapse occurs for the rest, we aren't left with much of anything that can be called 'something'.

As illusion, there is no need to account for the origin of matter, because there is none. It also creates a universe that is causeless, without time or space.

IOW, the BB is an event in consciousness.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is reasonable depending on the known ability of what they agree to. If 99% of people who have been to Cairo say there are 3 pyramids there I can easily agree. If 98% of people who have never ever seen abiogenesis occur say it has I cannot agree.

Common descent does not have anything to do with abiogenesis. 99.86% of American experts, the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent.

BTW you at one time made very strong and very many arguments about numbers and authority used as evidence or persuasiveness.

Yes, and so do you, and so do many other Christians, including William Lane Craig, and even the author of the book that you asked me to read.

It seems you have defected but I am through with biology.

I haven't defected at all. I told you that experts write science textbooks, not amateurs, and that even though experts are sometimes wrong, they are the best that we have, and that experts are often right. I also told you that if 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it.

If I was to have went with popular opinion just 60-70 years ago I would be stuck believing the universe had always been here in this state.

Do you consider that to be an adequate rebuttal to Dr. Douglas Theobald's article on common descent at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/?

Would the National Academy of Sciences interpret what you said as a good reason to discredit common descent? Of course not.

Would you like to tell Michael Behe that common descent might be false since if you went with popular opinion just 60-70 years ago you would be stuck believing the universe had always been here in this state? Of course not.

Today, when biologists study common descent, how do you propose that they study it differently than they do now? What, if any college biology teaching methods are wrong?

Are you attempting to reasonably establish the probability of whether or not common descent is true based upon what happened in physics 60-70 years ago? How is an amateur like you in a position to adequately judge the probability of whether or not common descent is true?

I believe groups based on the known ability of what they agree to. I am even more skeptical in modern times where tenure, grants, being published, and even employed at all depends on towing the line about evolution. Don't know what to believe with that dynamic firmly entrenched.

I have heard that argument before, and it is utterly absurd.

Before the 1800s, most laymen, and most experts, rejected common descent. In say 1750, when most laymen, and most experts, accepted creationism, if your argument was valid then, then supporters of common descent could have validly said that they did not know what to believe since creationism was so firmly entrenched. So according to your implication, few laymen creationists who lived in 1750 should have accepted creationism since it was so firmly entrenched, not to mention that few of them knew very much about biology. In addition, according to your implication, if creationism one day becomes firmly entrenched again, few people should accept it since it had become firmly entrenched again.

Today, scientific opposition to the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are firmly entrenched, and scientific support for common descent is also firmly entrenched. When support for, or opposition to a scientific theory becomes firmly entrenched, quite naturally a very small percentage of opponents becomes widely unpopular, and widely ridiculed, as is the case with scientific opposition to the global flood theory, the young earth theory, and creationism.

Before the 1800s, the playing field was unfair for evolutionists, not for creationists, so the past events that led to the current widespread scientific acceptance of common descent was more than fair for creationists.

 

[jimniki]

God did not make Man in his image ....
Man made God in his image....

I believe in God.
My god is nature
My God does not have a conscious

In my God's universe, there is no good or evil - this is a human dilemma
There is no heaven or hell - this is human control through fear
My God is not a "He" ... or a "She"
My god does not need worship - it has no ego

 

[Thief]

God did not make Man in his image ....
Man made God in his image....

I believe in God.
My god is nature
My God does not have a conscious

In my God's universe, there is no good or evil - this is a human dilemma
There is no heaven or hell - this is human control through fear
My God is not a "He" ... or a "She"
My god does not need worship - it has no ego

May the Force be with you.
Beware the Dark side.

Not trying to be too cute......but.....

When you take away the concept of a mindful Creator.....
Man is a spontaneous event, without purpose, direction or resolve.
A complete mystery.

Nothing Greater than yourself?
Could that Something Greater be capable of creation?

My God doesn't have a name.
Could be Father or Mother, brother, sister or fellow servant.

But that ability to create.....is like a sword.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is correct according to dozens of book by experts in the field. Gould wrote on just on that find alone. Coughing up some ambiguous and completely unknowable guesses and calling it an answer does not make it one. The leader of the Smithsonian certainly thought it violated the gradual evolution popular at the time. It also explains why the tree of evolution it's self has evolved into the jungle of evolution at present. No telling what form will represent it in a dozen years from now. Looking back what you bolded is the most certain of the claims I made. It is the current model for that period.

Let’s examine what you said then (again):

For example all the major body plans appeared in a geological instant of a few ten million years without any predecessors known

There were basically no land animals or plants. Worms, sponges and other multicellular versions of life have been found in Precambrian layers of rock. There are transitional fossils found within the Cambrian explosion fossils. And most of the life forms found from the Cambrian period are completely different from the life forms we see today (things like mammals, reptiles and birds don’t show up until later on) .

So I’m not really sure what your point is. If your point is that there’s no explanation for the appearance of Cambrian life and so we have to assume god created most life as we know it during that time period, I’m not sure how you can reach that conclusion unless you also think god has intervened several times since then to create life as we know it today (and if that’s where you’re coming from you’re going to need some kind of evidence of such an intervention).

If your point is that evolution doesn’t adequately explain the diversity of life on earth, then I still don’t follow because there’s evidence of transition during the period we’re talking about, and both before and after it, not to mention all other observations that confirm evolutionary theory and common descent.

 

[Agnostic75]

The leader of the Smithsonian certainly thought it violated the gradual evolution popular at the time. It also explains why the tree of evolution it's self has evolved into the jungle of evolution at present. No telling what form will represent it in a dozen years from now. Looking back what you bolded is the most certain of the claims I made. It is the current model for that period.

Which leader of the Smithsonian?

What violated the gradual evolution popular at the time?

Why is the tree of evolution a jungle? What does that mean?

If the tree is somewhat different a dozen years from now, would that necessarily mean that common descent is not true?

What is the current model for that period?

I asked you those questions because with your permission I want to send what you said to some experts, and post their replies if they give me permission to do so. We could start some lengthy discussions with some experts, and people can find out how little you know about biology?

Why won't you critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's thorough article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent In the article, Theobald says that some of the evidences that support common descent are independent of each other. If you cannot adequately refute the article, you cannot adequately refute common descent. You said that are too busy to critique the article. If that is true, then since you do not have time to critique the article, you do not have time to discredit common descent since it is a vast topic, and it cannot be adequately discussed by your brief misrepresentations of common descent.

Of course, your excuse was bogus. Even if you are too busy to critique the article, you know that you do not know anywhere near enough about biology to adequately critique it. In addition, you have enough time to critique it a little at a time. Further, you refused to discuss even the brief following comments that I posted from Michael Behe:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a copy of a broken gene that in other mammals makes vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin - not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene too.

So much for your bogus excuses.

You are an admitted amateur, and you are not even a knowledgeable amateur compared to thousands of other amateurs. In spite of that, some time ago, you falsely claimed that Ken Miller's article about the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun is wrong. The truth is that you do not understand most of the article, so your claim that Miller is wrong is false. Please restate your objections to the article, or post some new objections. With your permission, I will send your objections to Miller for his comments, and no doubt, for his amusement.

You already know that it is impossible for you to have any influence at all with biologists, and that you would embarrass yourself if you used your current arguments in debates, or discussions with experts, or even with knowledgeable amateurs. My gracious, don't you know that people like Michael Behe, Douglas Theobald, and Ken Miller forgot more about the Burgess shale, and the current, and past evolutionary tress than you will ever know? Well of course you do, but you prefer bluffing to informed debates. If you were not bluffing, you would be willing to debate, or have some discussion with some experts, or at least some knowledgeable amateurs. What is a knowledgeable amateur? An amateur who knows a lot more about biology than you do, and there are plenty of them. It would not take you any more time to discuss biology with experts, or knowledgeable amateurs, than it takes for you to discuss biology at this forum, and you could gain some credibility if you made some good arguments.

Biologists want to know whether or not common descent is probably true since trying to find the truth is what science is about. However, regarding common descent, I believe that your primary interest is probably not trying to find out whether or not common descent is probably true, but trying to strengthen the faith of creationists whether or not common descent is true. Assuming for the sake of argument that common descent is true, wouldn't you prefer that creationists believe that it is false in cases where believing that it is true would weaken their faith? Not long ago, I told you that I once had some Internet discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day no longer believed that the Bible is inerrarant that he would give up Christianity.

 

[1robin]

Let’s examine what you said then (again):

For example all the major body plans appeared in a geological instant of a few ten million years without any predecessors known

There were basically no land animals or plants. Worms, sponges and other multicellular versions of life have been found in Precambrian layers of rock. There are transitional fossils found within the Cambrian explosion fossils. And most of the life forms found from the Cambrian period are completely different from the life forms we see today (things like mammals, reptiles and birds don’t show up until later on) .

So I’m not really sure what your point is. If your point is that there’s no explanation for the appearance of Cambrian life and so we have to assume god created most life as we know it during that time period, I’m not sure how you can reach that conclusion unless you also think god has intervened several times since then to create life as we know it today (and if that’s where you’re coming from you’re going to need some kind of evidence of such an intervention).

If your point is that evolution doesn’t adequately explain the diversity of life on earth, then I still don’t follow because there’s evidence of transition during the period we’re talking about, and both before and after it, not to mention all other observations that confirm evolutionary theory and common descent.

The model at the time of this find was SLOW gradual evolution. Major body types taking hundreds of millions of years to arise. This find suggested what has been termed punctuated equilibrium. IOW periodic rapid evolution that is far harder to explain by genetics alone but by this time they are so committed to evolution that even things that seeming are inconsistent it with are simply pounded into the mold. However that was not my major point. The point was that the establishment at the time hated this new and inconvenient evidence so badly they literally hid it away and did not make it available for the sole reasons it did not fit the model. It was a story to illustrate mainly the dishonesty that exists in science as in everything men do and to show that things universally thought to be certainties often turn out to be wrong.

For clarification lets get the facts straight. Those finds and subsequent ones suggest that single celled protozoan life went to the extreme complexity of crustacean body plans in about 20 million years. That is completely inconsistent with the classic Darwinian theory that was elevated to sainthood at that time and the sacred "model" was preferred over the actual data intentionally. It is even worse now. We went from tree models (which are the least intuitive given God), to bush models, to the very God suggestive forest models of evolution, and I imagine it will only get more God suggestive as time goes on, the same as it has with cosmology.

 

[1robin]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75 View Post
Common descent does not have anything to do with abiogenesis. 99.86% of American experts, the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent.

This repeating yourself and forcing me to repeat myself is frustrating and almost prohibitive. We are not talking about theories or models we are talking about theologically related reality. In reality common descent used as evidence against God is absolutely dependent on abiogenesis. There is no escape from that requirement in a theological context. This is not a biology forum.

Yes, and so do you, and so do many other Christians, including William Lane Craig, and even the author of the book that you asked me to read.

You still do not get it. I have always accepted arguments from authority. My using them is consistent. Your the one who has used them and then condemned them. That is the point.

I haven't defected at all. I told you that experts write science textbooks, not amateurs, and that even though experts are sometimes wrong, they are the best that we have, and that experts are often right. I also told you that if 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it.

Yet you have condemned arguments from authority many times. Just pick one side and stick with it, I do not care which just be consistent.

Do you consider that to be an adequate rebuttal to Dr. Douglas Theobald's article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

No, I consider a true statement in a whole other category. However it's title suggests he presents 29 examples of common descent. I do not disagree with there being 29 examples where one thing evolved into another. However I do deny that everything evolved from one thing is knowable or logical so (from the title) I have no reason to dispute the claims so no need to critique the article. Maybe I am misinterpreting the title though.

Would the National Academy of Sciences interpret what you said as a good reason to discredit common descent? Of course not.

I do not have time for rhetorical questions. However the actual answer to the contrived question would probably be an acknowledgment of the problem I mentioned but a denial that the problem constitutes sufficient reason to deny the model.

Would you like to tell Michael Behe that common descent might be false since if you went with popular opinion just 60-70 years ago you would be stuck believing the universe had always been here in this state? Of course not.

I would be wiling to tell him that, and I imagine he would agree with the sentiment but not change his models because of it. You are misapplying my statement.

Today, when biologists study common descent, how do you propose that they study it differently than they do now? What, if any college biology teaching methods are wrong?

I am not qualified to adequately respond to this. I would only suggest they credit things with far more certainty than they should and are too loyal to models instead of data. That being said I imagine most textbooks are mostly correct if they are modest. My mother was on my counties textbook committee and with only a high school degree constantly found errors in textbooks that were then rejected but I was to young to recall what they were.

Are you attempting to reasonably establish the probability of whether or not common descent is true based upon what happened in physics 60-70 years ago? How is an amateur like you in a position to adequately judge the probability of whether or not common descent is true?

No I'm a trying to give reasons to deny the reasons you gave for accepting it. I am skeptical of scholarship until I investigate it. So it is not who said what but why they said it. If you notice most of my arguments from authority come with the authority plus the reasoning. Yours usually just come with the authority with a few exceptions.

I have heard that argument before, and it is utterly absurd.

I spent ten years in 3 universities and worked for two of them. It is an absolute fact and your calling it absurd is absurd. Academia, just like politics, or even some Church leadership has one gaping flaw. It is regulated by flawed humans who contaminate everything they touch. Why would you think that the corruption inherent to every single government man has ever created would be absent from academics? That is truly absurd. At one of my schools recently a teacher who was going to be denied tenure shot and killed some of those that were responsible.

Before the 1800s, most laymen, and most experts, rejected common descent. In say 1750, when most laymen, and most experts, accepted creationism, if your argument was valid then, then supporters of common descent could have validly said that they did not know what to believe since creationism was so firmly entrenched. So according to your implication, few laymen creationists who lived in 1750 should have accepted creationism since it was so firmly entrenched, not to mention that few of them knew very much about biology. In addition, according to your implication, if creationism one day becomes firmly entrenched again, few people should accept it since it had become firmly entrenched again.

That sounds like another reasons to not accept the authority of mere authority but to investigate what they claim. That was not what you intended to say however but I can't figure out what you tried to say so made another point.

Today, scientific opposition to the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, are firmly entrenched, and scientific support for common descent is also firmly entrenched. When support for, or opposition to a scientific theory becomes firmly entrenched, quite naturally a very small percentage of opponents becomes widely unpopular, and widely ridiculed, as is the case with scientific opposition to the global flood theory, the young earth theory, and creationism

. I am not a global flood literalist though I do not think there is enough evidence to rule it out yet. I allow the story to be either a local flood or an allegory. The bible does not support a young earth, only some traditions do that. I went to great lengths to explain that one but I see I wasted my time. You are correct that the majority always tends to exclude the opinions of the minority at times. However the pendulum always swings back and too far.

Before the 1800s, the playing field was unfair for evolutionists, not for creationists, so the past events that led to the current widespread scientific acceptance of common descent was more than fair for creationists.

Yes it was, and creationism has the same problem in modern times. Christians dominated science for longer and to a greater extent that any other group and were biased. However the infancy of atheistic ruled science in modern times is far more biased, almost virulent, and hostile. Again I think the answer lies in between both extremes.

 

[1robin]

Which leader of the Smithsonian?

Charles Doolittle Walcott.

What violated the gradual evolution popular at the time?

Single celled life evolving to the complexity of all major body types in about 20 million years instead of the hundreds and hundreds of millions supposed.

Why is the tree of evolution a jungle? What does that mean?

That means the more evidence that is found the more the tree model of evolution looks like a forest model. IOW instead of having a single source that grows into all genetic reality you have countless instantaneous beginnings to genetic trees that do not seem to be related to one another.

If the tree is somewhat different a dozen years from now, would that necessarily mean that common descent is not true?

Common descent supposes that one single life form emerged and that all life evolved from it. The forest model has many originations for genetically related progress. I'm not sure if wrong is the bets word but inadequate would be valid. The word would cease to adequately describe reality but the principle could still be true in another form.

What is the current model for that period?

Are you asked what the tree/bush/forest diagram looks like for the Cambrian?

I asked you those questions because with your permission I want to send what you said to some experts, and post their replies if they give me permission to do so. We could start some lengthy discussions with some experts, and people can find out how little you know about biology?

You are welcome to but academics are hard to get access to if your a laymen, many times even if your a student. However since this argument came from academia and not me I don't see the point.

Why won't you critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's thorough article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent In the article, Theobald says that some of the evidences that support common descent are independent of each other. If you cannot adequately refute the article, you cannot adequately refute common descent. You said that are too busy to critique the article. If that is true, then since you do not have time to critique the article, you do not have time to discredit common descent since it is a vast topic, and it cannot be adequately discussed by your brief misrepresentations of common descent.

I do not deny macro-evolution. I am skeptical that it is the sole explanation for genetic reality. Your giving me links to titles that do not necessarily disagree with my permission. So I am reluctant to spend the large amount of time critiquing them. Now if you find one that says evolution leaves no role for God in reality then that would be one I would critique. Macro-evolution is possible but the evidence is not enough to eliminate great skepticism at this time.

Of course, your excuse was bogus. Even if you are too busy to critique the article, you know that you do not know anywhere near enough about biology to adequately critique it. In addition, you have enough time to critique it a little at a time. Further, you refused to discuss even the brief following comments that I posted from Michael Behe:

I have a degree in math but consider myself an amateur in it. However if Lennox says hat 2 + 2 = 5 then I am qualified to disagree. In that same way I can say that Dawkins central argument from God's requiring a cause is bogus and that Hawking's claim that gravity existing means a universe can come into being from nothing is first not science and second is philosophically absurd. I cannot critique the majority of what a PhD claims in virtually any field but I can use the percentage of what I am qualified to critique along with WHAT OTHER AUTHORITIES say about it to form a general judgment about the issue. You condemn arguments from authority and then use them improperly. I use them as evidence, you seem to use them as proof. If I quote Behe on IR does it make IR true?

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

I am not qualified to critique these statements but as my generalized position is that Adam was the first primate with a soul I have no need to. You still are not linking to things that have theological significance.

So much for your bogus excuses.

I am reaching critical mass with your assumption regarding my motivations and comments based on them. If you wish to continue a dialogue I suggest you refrain from these time wasting arrogant thought fragments.

You are an admitted amateur, and you are not even a knowledgeable amateur compared to thousands of other amateurs. In spite of that, some time ago, you falsely claimed that Ken Miller's article about the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun is wrong. The truth is that you do not understand most of the article, so your claim that Miller is wrong is false. Please restate your objections to the article, or post some new objections. With your permission, I will send your objections to Miller for his comments, and no doubt, for his amusement.

1. You do not have the slightest idea whether I equal an average amateur's knowledge of evolution.
2. I did not say Miller was wrong about his argument. I said he was wrong in claiming it did the slightest thing to prove that IR is wrong.
3. I even went on to explain inn detail why his conclusion was incorrect and did not follow from his example. Which you have yet to even touch on.

You already know that it is impossible for you to have any influence at all with biologists, and that you would embarrass yourself if you used your current arguments in debates, or discussions with experts, or even with knowledgeable amateurs. My gracious, don't you know that people like Michael Behe, Douglas Theobald, and Ken Miller forgot more about the Burgess shale, and the current, and past evolutionary tress than you will ever know? Well of course you do, but you prefer bluffing to informed debates. If you were not bluffing, you would be willing to debate, or have some discussion with some experts, or at least some knowledgeable amateurs. What is a knowledgeable amateur? An amateur who knows a lot more about biology than you do, and there are plenty of them. It would not take you any more time to discuss biology with experts, or knowledgeable amateurs, than it takes for you to discuss biology at this forum, and you could gain some credibility if you made some good arguments.

I never suggested I could influence biologists, many times biologists are not influenced by other biologists, reality, or even reason so there is no point in pointing it out. However my "problems" with evolution come from biologists not from my head or any experiments I have done so this whole arena is a moot point to begin with.

Biologists want to know whether or not common descent is probably true since trying to find the truth is what science is about. However, regarding common descent, I believe that your primary interest is probably not trying to find out whether or not common descent is probably true, but trying to strengthen the faith of creationists whether or not common descent is true. Assuming for the sake of argument that common descent is true, wouldn't you prefer that creationists believe that it is false in cases where believing that it is true would weaken their faith? Not long ago, I told you that I once had some Internet discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day no longer believed that the Bible is inerrarant that he would give up Christianity.

Biologists want many things. One being to know the truth, others being to get published, to get grant money, to receive tenure, to go with the current flow of science, and to feed their family and drive a BMW. I never know which motivation produced which claim so I have to do the best I can to determine the truth of the claim. Most of that comes from claims by others in their field, or relatable fields. Much of what they say I find to be plausible but not knowable. None of it, or even all of it seems to me to in any way be an obstacle to faith.

 

[Agnostic75]

Common descent does not have anything to do with abiogenesis. 99.86% of American experts, the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent.

This repeating yourself and forcing me to repeat myself is frustrating and almost prohibitive. We are not talking about theories or models we are talking about theologically related reality. In reality common descent used as evidence against God is absolutely dependent on abiogenesis. There is no escape from that requirement in a theological context. This is not a biology forum.

As I have told you at least several times, you have made a number of arguments in this thread that question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective. My position has been, and still is that you do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

Millions of American Christians reject common descent. According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important. Many of them reject common descent entirely by faith. If you approve of that, please say so and we can forget about discussing science anymore in this thread as far as common descent is concerned.

Biologists want many things. One being to know the truth, others being to get published, to get grant money, to receive tenure, to go with the current flow of science, and to feed their family and drive a BMW. I never know which motivation produced which claim so I have to do the best I can to determine the truth of the claim. Most of that comes from claims by others in their field, or relatable fields.

The best that you can do is not nearly enough to adequately question, or discredit common descent, and that goes for a large percentage of creationists who know very little about biology.

If a person knows enough about biology, they obviously do not need to know the motivation of the writer. When papers are submitted for peer review, quite obviously the motivation of the submitter is irrelevant to whether or not the paper is accepted since it must be accepted or rejected entirely upon its scientific merits.

A large percentage of creationists do not know enough about biology to reject common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

Much of what they say I find to be plausible but not knowable.

Better stated, what most experts say is not knowable but in their opinion is probable. As Wikipedia says, many experts say that the scientific evidence for common descent is overwhelming.

I haven't defected at all. I told you that experts write science textbooks, not amateurs, and that even though experts are sometimes wrong, they are the best that we have, and that experts are often right. I also told you that if 99.86% of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you, would surely make a big deal about it.

Yet you have condemned arguments from authority many times. Just pick one side and stick with it, I do not care which just be consistent.

Where did I reject a large consensus regarding common descent, or anything else? I told you previously in this thread that I usually accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts unless I believe that I know a lot about a topic. I do not know a lot about biology, so I accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts, and regarding common descent, the large consensus of experts who accept it is impressive since it consists of virtually all skeptic experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

It is you who need to decide whether or not to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts regarding common descent, not me.

Before the 1800s, the playing field was unfair for evolutionists, not for creationists, so the past events that led to the current widespread scientific acceptance of common descent was more than fair for creationists.

Yes it was, and creationism has the same problem in modern times.

You would only be correct is there was not lots of credible scientific evidence that supports common descent, and you cannot reasonably prove that there isn't since you are only a mere dabbler in biology compared with the amount of knowledge about biology that it would take to adequately discredit common descent, but even creationist experts have been widely rejected even by the majority of other Christian experts who accept common descent.

As I told you, regardless of the theory, whenever a theory becomes widely supported, it is quite natural that a relatively few dissenters will be criticized, sometimes fairly, and sometimes unfairly, but I am not aware of any credible evidence that Michael Behe, and Ken Miller have treated creationists unfairly, not to mention many other supporters of common descent who have not treated creationists unfairly.

Christians dominated science for longer and to a greater extent that any other group and were biased.

Yes, and many Christian experts are still biased, and some even admit it. As you yourself said, it is often not possible to know who is biased, and who is not biased.

However the infancy of atheistic ruled science in modern times is far more biased, almost virulent, and hostile. Again I think the answer lies in between both extremes.

That is quite odd since the National Academy of Sciences does not accept or reject the existence of God, and the majority of Christian experts accept common descent. Are you claiming that the peer review process for scientific papers on common descent is unfairly ruled by atheists, and that college biology textbooks are unfairly controlled by atheists? I assume that most Christian experts who accept common descent would say no. It appears that you have committed another composition fallacy. Some atheists are unfairly biased, but so are some Christians. I suggest that you start a new thread at the Evolution vs Creationism forum and provide evidence for your assertions about atheists.

In most advanced Western countries, few Christians make as big a deal out of atheists as you do, and even in the U.S., the majority of Christian experts in biology, and tens of millions of Christians, have no problems with the current educational system, and accept the separation of church and state, which apparently you don't since teaching creationism, and intelligent design in public schools would violate the separation of church and state.

You do not have the slightest idea whether I equal an average amateur's knowledge of evolution.

But it was never my position that you do not equal the average amateur's knowledge of evolution. I would never make such a claim since the average amateur does not nearly know enough about biology to have informed opinions about common descent. You once said that you know very little about biology, and even recently you said that you base some of your opinions on what creationist experts say even though you admittedly know very little about biology.

One thing for certain is that many creationists do not know enough about biology to have informed opinions about common descent.

Because of your complaints about atheists, I started a thread on May 1 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...st-ken-miller-discusses-science-religion.html that it titled "Biologist Ken Miller discusses science, religion, and faith." Please read the opening post, and make a post in that thread.

A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin shows that Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," not an atheist. You have criticized Darwin for being an amateur naturalist, but even many Christian experts say that he was brilliant, and knew a lot about biology, and they greatly admire his work.

When I say I am done with a subject I mean it.

Obviously not since you discussed common descent after you said that.

Do you intend to discuss the Tyre prophecy any more? I easily won those debates, and you have not replied to a number of
my posts in that thread. I quoted some prestigious Christian experts who agree with some of my arguments, I showed where even some of your own sources agree with some of my arguments, and I showed where you even tried to discredit one of your own sources. You were confused about a number of issue in that thread, including your false claim that Carthage founded Tyre when it was Tyre that founded Carthage. You also said that the only reason that Alexander attacked the island fortress was because the Tyrians hung his messengers, but I showed you where Arrian said that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: There is easily lots of valid evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. For example, my post 3639 reasonably proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since he does not have free will.

My post 3640 on the same page reasonably proves that God does not provide reasonable evidence for everyone who has heard enough about the Gospels to be accountable, which reasonably proves that God does not exist since a loving God would be fair.

My post 3641 reasonably proves that it is just as possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter as it is that he is who the Bible says he is.

We have discussed those topics before, but we need to discuss them some more in detail for at least several months. It takes a long time to adequately discuss some topics.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: You do not need to reply to these arguments if you do not want to. At least I can show any new readers who are interested that you lost the debates in the main thread on homosexuality, just like you did in the thread on the Tyre prophecy. Of course, these are only a few of the many invalid arguments that you made in that thread.

You certainly know what a composition fallacy is, which is judging a whole based upon some of the parts, and that nowhere near all homosexuals have risks that are high enough to justify abstinence.

I do not know of a single point I made about homosexuality that contained anything that had anything to do with a composition of anything. My argument consisted of two points which had nothing to do with extrapolations from individual truths to generalizations about groups.

You are referring to the following two arguments that you made late in the main thread on homosexuality after you knew that you had made a number of invalid arguments, and had refused to reply to some of my arguments:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Item 1 is obviously a composition fallacy since all homosexuals do not produce massive increases in suffering, death, and cost, and many do not produce any increases in suffering, death, and cost at all.

Item 2 is obviously also a composition fallacy since homosexuality is definitely justified for homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy, have been monogamous for many years, and have adequately proven that their risks are not nearly enough to justify abstinence for life.

Having safe sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

All major medical organizations reject your absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Since you said that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence, such as heterosexual black Americans, heterosexual black Africans, heterosexual women over 45 years of age need, and heterosexuals who live in poverty, especially since you said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many deaths when I asked you something like what percentage of homosexuals dying from AIDS would you accept.

In your first post in the main thread on homosexuality, which was post 297 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-30.html, you said:

He did not say you could not do it. He said you should not do so. I can kill but I shouldn't. If you are saying you see nothing wrong with it. That it produces no negative effects then why does the blood bank ask you if you are a homosexual as one of their prohibitive requirements? Are you suggesting that your desire to do something makes that thing right?

Do you still accept those arguments? If so, then you definitely made a composition fallacy since a composition fallacy is judging a whole based upon some of the parts.

An especially absurd argument that you made was that homosexuals cause suffering for people who don't practice it. That is true, but heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, certainly not homosexuals, as is easily proven by far more heterosexual cases of preventable heart disease, and obesity than cases of HIV/AIDS among homosexuals. A Christian made an argument at the Internet that it takes more money to treat a case of AIDS than it takes to treat a case of heart disease, but he conveniently failed to state that heart disease collectively costs far more to treat than AIDS does since far more people have it than have AIDS, and that there are millions of preventable cases of diseases, and serious health conditions other than heart disease.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is nothing illogical and almost nothing un necessary given by a claim that the universe is not eternal and there was a uncaused first cause. I would only claim God as the leading and most suffecient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices an abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

Christians dominated science for longer and to a greater extent that any other group and were biased. However the infancy of atheistic ruled science in modern times is far more biased, almost virulent, and hostile. Again I think the answer lies in between both extremes.

George Lemaitre was a brilliant physicist, and a Roman Catholic priest. He was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory. Consider the following:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

By the way, Lemaitre accepted common descent.

NOVA | In Defense of Evolution

Question: What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Question: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Question: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Miller: Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.

On December 20, 2005, [judge] Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory....... ID is not science.......ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.......ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.......

Judge Jones is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president.

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

I agree with Lemaitre, Miller, Judge Jones, Vilenkin, and millions of Christians around the world, mainly liberal Christians, who have no need of mixing science and religion like you do, and certainly do not claim that atheists unfairly control science like you do. Many skeptic and Christian science experts peacefully work side by side, and get along just fine. It is usually only creationist experts, and very conservative Christian laymen who complain about how science is run in U.S. laboratories and classrooms.

I do not have any idea whether or not an unknown God exists, but from an entirely scientific perspective, naturalism cannot logically be ruled out by mere humans since quantum physics is not very old, is very complex, and is often counter intuitive to humans. The brains of even the most intelligent humans are not able to know beyond a reasonable doubt what creative abilities eternal, naturalistic energy might have, and according to many physicists, including your own prestigious source Roger Penrose, the existence of other possible universes cannot be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. Theology is not convincing, but at least some of it is at least arguable, such as deism, and very liberal theism, but from an entirely scientific perspective, as the National Academy of Sciences has basically said, science cannot reasonably prove or disprove the existence of God.

Because of your religious bias, you do not know your own limitations regarding quantum physics.

Adequately assessing the vast field of biblical textual criticism is way beyond you, me, and the majority of other Christian and skeptic laymen. No loving God would make choosing a world view as complicated, and scholarly as many modern conservative Christians have made it.

Have you read Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon Are you very familiar with the background material at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View topic - Useful links & Forum rules

Please reply to my previous three posts.