Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[Erexsaur]

Erexsaur says

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded as implied by belief in evolution and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish, irrational, and irrelevant.

Erexsaur, can you tell me whether or not in a science classroom, if ever the topic of evolution comes up, that the teacher starts talking about who is 'boss', that the Christian God is to be despised, foolish, irrational, irrelevant?

I went to Christian schools, and whenever I stepped into science class, not once did the topic of religion come up. No mention was EVER made that since evolution is true, this means humans are the bosses and the God of the Bible is an idiot.

Hello Rikuoamero,

What would be the need to trumpet the truth that God is supreme in a Christian school science class in a Christian culture where it is basically presupposed that God is supreme?

Why is evolution, that presupposes no need for a supernatural God so loudly trumpeted everywhere even in some Christian schools? Creation truth and evolutionary belief are diametrically opposed and cannot both be true. Even though normal for scientists to disagree on issues, why is the evolution versus creation battle so hot even to the point of condemning creationists scientists as science-hating buffoons? Don’t we see there’s a battle instead of mere disagreements? This battle is widespread.

My purpose is not to condemn people or institutions, but to point out the opposing worldviews that have opposing effects on people and institutions. According to the evolutionary worldview, the field of Science and Biblical Theology are incompatible. According to the worldview based on creation truth, the field of Science and Biblical Theology are tightly knit together.

But with the concept of God pushed out by a belief that we weren’t created by God with dignity, where do we find any basis for unalienable rights? How was mankind informed of the need for us to treat each other as we would like to be treated ourselves?

My fourth post for Kenisaw must wait for tomorrow.

Earl

[Neatras]

You said,

What I'm getting from you are non-sequiturs (God doesn't exist, therefore anything goes!), poisoning the well and slippery slope fallacies (secular humanist worldviews are gonna lead to a Holocaust!). You can paint it with a lot of pretty-sounding words to stack the deck in your favor, but what you can't do is come out and say it: You think that without your particular religion, everything goes to hell and back and we're all left in a wasteland without hope. Because that's the picture painted by the pulpit and by your holy book. You can't come out and say it because you know how unpalatable it is, and how distorted your presentation would be to every viewer.

Sorry to say it, but that's just your own worldview imposed on others. We don't have any interest in unsubstantiated claims about how we need your imaginary cure for your imaginary sickness (sin).

Everyone that would hold on to my personal religion (if I invented one) would also go to hell. But he that turns to the gospel must first give up all of his own stuff. Do you remember the scriptural warnings, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes"?

Completely irrelevant to my post. I do like how you make it a very clear point about who's going to hell and who isn't, though. Even though you've taken a huge detour, you left that little treat there as an implicit threat that folks will suffer for not following a similar path as yours (because clearly you're not making a religion, you're following the right path! A bold claim you haven't substantiated).

This is what makes theism so... distasteful. I can't imagine a more unscientific principle than leaving the discovery of knowledge to the whims of a sovereign who punished humans for obtaining knowledge. You claim that religion plays an active part in shaping how science is conducted, but I see clear cognitive dissonance between that and the statement that debates are settled by assuming a sovereign who has the "final say." What a small god you have that it should be required we put on hold any kind of discovery if at any moment an arbitrary decree (handed down by humans acting on behalf of your god, I imagine) claims something is taboo.

If you have some objection to evolutionary theory based on scientific grounds, I'd love to hear it. Because otherwise this entire discussion about "worldviews" remains grounded purely in speculation on your part.

I'm not talking about just religion.

Ya are, though. When you talk about who's going to hell, you're making the discussion about religion.

To show that none of my objections to evolution are on scientific grounds, will you please bring to my attention a scientific law that supports the processes by which a simple organism by mere chance supposedly increased in complexity over long periods of time to become all the species we know today that includes humankind? Just one? Isn't nature around us governed by laws?

ALRIGHT MAN, I'm feeling fired up! Don't be mad at me if I get a little technical going through this; if you don't like how nuanced the sciences are, you ought not go talking big about how there are "scientific laws" that support your weak ideas about special creation or whatever.

But to help bring my points home, I'm gonna need some help. If you wanna tag in your bruisers to tear my argument to shreds, feel free. But for now, I hope you'll at least be entertained by our eccentric friend here:

[Youtube][/Youtube]

You didn't watch the video. That's fine, I get it. Something about him doesn't really make it seem like he knows what he's talking about. After all, he's not wearing a crisp (recently store-bought) lab coat, standing in front of a backdrop and calling himself a scientist.



For the record, if you feel like it, you can bring up John Pendleton and I'd be happy to have a laugh at how many red herrings he brings up. This entry-level creationism support can be checked at the door.

I almost lost track of myself, I was supposed to summarize the video... I'll at least start with tearing into this part.

will you please bring to my attention a scientific law that supports the processes by which a simple organism by mere chance supposedly increased in complexity over long periods of time

We can do anything by working with each other!

In a discussion on the processes underlying hierarchic transitions in evolution:

[quote=""Hierarchic Transitions in Evolution with Dr. Terrence Deacon"]
Terry has outlined 4 general phases that these transitions go through as they progress but, before we get too abstract, let's just look at an example first.

...

"I want to start at a very low level, at the level of genes themselves. How do you get synergy evolving among genes?" -Dr. Terrence Deacon

So there's a fairly common kind of mutation that happens called a gene duplication. There are several reasons why this might occur, but the end result is that where there was once one gene on the chromosome coding for a protein, there is now an identical copy right next to it which codes for the same protein.

And this redundant duplication has a particular effect on the way that natural selection impacts the gene. Most of the time, selection acts as a conservative force, when specific functions evolve, any deviations in the protein that causes them will usually make the function worse. But, now that there are two copies of the gene, one copy can remain the same, while the other is free to wander around and explore possibilities, without so much risk of negative effect.

"So what's happening is the original function is preserved, because of the redundancy, and now you get sort of a random walk of alternatives, that are just slightly off or varied from the original function. If this slightly varied function actually produces something useful, that is by having two slightly variant functions of the same thing, you could do sort of more than one thing; you could have your cake and eat it too, so to speak." -Dr. Terrence Deacon
[/quote]

I'm gonna cut in here and provide a summary of what has just been described.

Within biology, there are a variety of effects that will cause a gene to be duplicated within the genome, with its identical copy existing right next to it. Already, we have a case where the base number of nucleotides in the chromosome, the very foundational components which have been referred to by creationists as the source code, is increased. One could easily argue this is an increase in complexity, but it's not what you're after. What you want is a wing gene that magically appears attached to another gene in a species that didn't originally have wings. That's the crocoduck argument, a red herring that we're going to set aside for now (because that's not related to evolutionary theory, that's nonsense drummed up due to creationists not understanding evolutionary theory in the least. What I'm doing is educational though).

So the number of genes in the genome has increased, but so what? It's still identical to a previous one. But that's the ticket, there's redundancy. In future generations, mutations to that copied gene can occur, causing it to vary in function while the original function is preserved. This means that novel functions can originate. And since there's spare room in the genome (because the amount of "data" or "information" has increased, if you use the jargon by creationists who are unknowingly shooting themselves in the foot), that means we can have increasing complexity over time.

Well, so much for a summary, but I thought I'd break it down into digestible bites that even a hard-set creationist can understand by fighting through the loaded jargon to hammer the point in home that creationists have no idea how little of evolutionary biology they understand. I can tear apart the idea of complexity stagnation with little more than a paragraph, and I'm just getting started.

[quote=""Hierarchic Transitions in Evolution with Dr. Terrence Deacon"]
"A new synergy can arise. The two can begin to complement one another, and if they complement one another, both of them will now be selected, not just for the function, but for how they complement each other. That is, there will be a level of selection that's now not just on the individual, but is distributed across two or more variants." -Dr. Terrence Deacon
[/quote]

I'll spare you the example provided, where they discuss the evolution of rhodopsins. Since this is probably just me talking to myself, and I doubt you'll have followed even this long, it would be lost on you. But hey, you could surprise me. So I'll just say that our early ancestors (who probably wouldn't resemble humans yet) would have rhodopsins that see a broad spectrum of light. Over time, duplicate genes would allow the copied rhodopsin-producing genes to code for proteins that are more sensitive to specific wavelengths of light, allowing for the ability to see colors in the light wavelength. In this case, duplication of genes leads to complementary functions that produce a synergistic sum of features that are improved over the original. I'm sorry I couldn't be there to see it happen, and so you're going to discount the entire thing using the tired argument of "there had to be a witness, otherwise it's not science!" That perversion of logic is tired enough that I realize this all a lost cause. Someone with such a presuppositional attitude isn't suited for these kinds of discussions, especially when what I'm giving is effectively an educational lecture on the exact science you are so opposed to. Learning about something you've made your mind up against isn't really going to go over well, I imagine. (Psst, this is the part where you single out this one phrase and try to turn it back on me, talking about how I don't like creationism. And you're right. So do me a favor and show me some actual arguments. I'm doing my half of work.)

[quote=""Hierarchic Transitions in Evolution with Dr. Terrence Deacon"]
[Regarding the rhodopsin example:] And this pattern of redundancy giving rise to synergy can be found all over the tree of life.

"This should be exhibited at all levels, and in fact this becomes a generic way of talking about how it is that higher order levels are generated." -Dr. Terrence Deacon

...

This transition takes place over 4 phases:

1. Duplication - Some function gets copied.
2. Masking - Redundancy masks selection that keeps function consistent.
3. Degeneration - Function breaks down slightly (because of the masking)
4. Compl[e]mentation - New complementary synergies emerge.

[/quote]

This is the very founding concept of Subfunctionalization, which leads to two separate genes playing complementary roles to compensate for the original gene having lost some level of function.



It also leads to Neofunctionalization, a process by which the copied gene allows a new function to emerge, because the redundancy allows the original function to be maintained.



What we've learned here is the process by which complexity can increase in an organism. So let's apply simple logic: If I have a new function emerge, and I give enough time to pass, what will happen to the genome? Why, gene duplication can happen again, any number of times over successive generations! And as this process repeats and gives rise to valuable features, further variation can exist. Additionally, after long enough periods of time when this process occurs, structures that originally existed may no longer be selected for; other genes in the genome can perform the function it once had, and do so at either lower cost to the organism, or they provide additional benefits that leave the original (now redundant) copy with no means of maintaining its structure over successive generations that may degrade its functionality. I'll call on QualiaSoup for this next example.

[Youtube][/Youtube]

[quote=""Irreducible complexity cut down to size" at 6:02"]
Let's take this dry stone arch: Remove any part and it collapses. This object does have irreducible complexity. But we can still reduce it part by part by following its construction in reverse. The stage before this wasn't four stones defying gravity, but five stones plus a support structure, in this case a curved piece of wood. And looks what happens now: We can take the arch apart, piece by piece, until only the support is left, forming an arch by itself. We've solved the problem of how to reduce this irreducibly complex object in stages by first adding a part before taking away. And this illustrates a fourth point: Precursors to irreducibly complex systems don't have to lack parts. They may for example have extra parts that get discarded. Evolution doesn't always add, it often subtracts, streamlining a structure or function, which benefits the organism by getting rid of redundant and physically costly components.
[/quote]

What we have here is a comprehensive idea of how genes and functions can arise, degrade, complement one another, produce synergy, and even take the place of former functional genes. With this array of potential pathways for organisms to take over a long span of time, tell me again which law prevents biodiversity due to evolutionary theory? Because I think the evidence speaks for itself. There are no mechanisms in place that prevent the previous examples of gene alteration from taking place and producing all kinds of unique organisms.

Let's get back to the hierarchic transitions video. We've dilly-dallied fighting against the strawmen and failed understandings of evolutionary theory by cdesign proponentsists for long enough.

[quote=""Hierarchic Transitions in Evolution with Dr. Terrence Deacon" at 6:06"]
Vitamin C: This time, redundancy isn't caused by gene duplication, but rather by the environment taking on some of the functions of the organism.

"A simple example of an external functional duplication occurred with respect to the synthesis of ascorbic acid (vitamin C)." -Dr. Terrence Deacon

Most other animals, from fish to rats, can produce their own vitamin C endogenously. But primates are different, our bodies can't make it on their own, so we need to eat fruit regularly. And the answer why turns out to fit very nicely into this hierarchic transition story.

"The logic of this I think is pretty straightforward. We begin with a normally endogenously producing gene that's in the genome. But, somewhere around 35 million years ago, the ancestors of monkeys and apes began to eat fruit. As we begin to regularly eat these sources of food, we begin to have external duplication of this function [producing Vitamin C]. The gene can now acquire certain mutations; at some point, if enough mutations are acquired, selection is now distributed to other parts in the genome that make it more likely that we'll constantly have availability of fruit." -Dr. Terrence Deacon

So eating lots of fruit relaxed selection on the Vitamin C gene, which in turn increased selection on other adaptations which ensure that fruit was reliably consumed. And one of those adaptations was... wait for it... color vision [see above]. You need color vision to find ripe fruit. Not only are primates unique among mammals in their lack of Vitamin C producing ability, they're also unique in their ability to see color. And these two uniquenesses are connected by the same pattern.
[/quote]

Did you hear that? It's the sound of another Creationist argument deflating. Suddenly the loss of a function isn't evidence against evolutionary theory. What we have is a synergistic relationship that demonstrates another aspect of evolutionary theory that your ilk can't accept: That varied functions distributed among interlocking systems can lead to the resulting organism surviving, reproducing, and passing on altered genes to eventually create highly diverse species. Life doesn't care if an organism has all of its functions endogenous to itself in order to survive. As long as all the prerequisite needs of the organism are met, either by the organism itself or by the environment/community, it will continue to exist, propagate, and pass on its genes. This is a concept that is so simple, yet its implications are always lost on creationists. There's a mental block of sorts that prevents creationists from comprehending how something as simple as reproducing is dependent on so many factors that force evolution to occur.

But we're not done yet, I've pointed out how synergy can arise on the genetic level and the environmental level. Now let's turn to the cellular level, where we happen on one of the most iconic evolutionary transitions of all: Endosymbiosis.

[quote=""Hierarchic Transitions in Evolution with Dr. Terrence Deacon" at 8:14"]
"This kind of logic is also relevant to the evolution of eukaryotic cells. From prokaryotic cells, as mitochondria and chloroplasts have become internalized into a cell, now they're a little bit like duplicate genes." -Dr. Terrence Deacon

When the mitochondria and the chloroplasts were independent from their hosts, they each had autonomous metabolisms. Both the host and the symbiote had all the genes they needed to get by in the world. But, once they started living close together, you had two redundant metabolisms performing the same function, and so they degraded and then synergies emerged. The host cell lost the parts of its metabolism that the mitochondria and the chloroplast could do better, and the organelles lost the genes for, well, almost everything. Most of their bodies are now built by the host.

"We have this process in which you produce this higher order, much more complex cell type. But in the process, you had to both have duplication and degeneration/degradation of the genome, of both genomes. Each have become dependent on each other, or co-dependent, so to speak." -Dr. Terrence Deacon

What's unique about this story is that it outlines a path for completely new levels of organism to evolve which does not rely on natural selection for increased complexity. In fact, just the opposite, it relies on relaxed selection and degradation. It's only when the adaptations that ensure autonomy degrade that new higher order synergies can emerge.
[/quote]

What a journey we've been on, eh Erexsaur? But don't worry, we're nearing the end. I've lost most of the audience already due to this brief overview of synergy in biology. We just need to take a look at the last step. This is the big one, though, so buckle up. We've had a colorful cabal of creationists championing the absurdity of microbes to man evolution (m2m), but what baffles me is that they open themselves up to a very easy counter: Examples of Multicellularity, where microbes themselves group up and form one composite organism/colony/cluster.

[Youtube][/Youtube]

I really have to apologize. It's 1:36 AM and I've lost track of time. So while I'd love to get into multicellularity, I think I've made my point. You have all the pieces of the puzzle. The only one who can fit them together in your mind is you.

Addition, subtraction, substitution, and recombination. These four possibilities mean everything when it comes to the genetic level of biology, and as has been demonstrated, they can lead to such incredible variety that one begins to wonder what other forms of life must exist out there, that push the boundaries for what we've seen so far.

Look at that, Erexsaur. I've given you such an immense look at the world of evolutionary biology. I've taught you about concepts regarding synergistic evolution on every level of functionality from the genetic level up to the environmental/societal level. I've pointed out to you how the creationist arguments don't add up, how the evidence you claim supports your position has always been distorted and is actually well-explained by evolutionary theory, and yet despite all of this, I don't know if you've comprehended a single word of it. I don't know if you have taken the proposed meaning of my post and actually critically analyzed it. Instead, I'm convinced that you're going to single out small portions of it, construct a narrative about my post that doesn't even exist, and then you'll segue into another rehearsed script. I ask that you read what I've written, and comprehend it based on how it is written, not on the narrative you need me to have in order for you to self-righteously ramble on about how our incompatible worldviews are so similar despite you having not even once providing a scientific argument in support of your position. This entire post? It's me taking away the ammunition creationists typically use, so they'll come up with something new. This is all a show put on exclusively so I can show you how inadequate the arguments you've been fed by creationists really are.

Even though we cannot go back in time to see evolution happen, shouldn't there be some law we may rely on to assure us in the present that it did?

I like how you didn't ask for evidence, you asked for laws. Just another example of how twisted the creationist ideology really is: It warps the entire concept of discussion specifically to set unreasonable expectations. There is countless evidence in all walks of life that shows complexity can increase over time, and in tandem, variation.

Besides, if we are informed that truth is established by one or two witnesses, will you please inform me of anyone that personally witnessed the millions of years of evolution that took place?

Eyewitness testimony is one of the weakest cases supporting any court trial, and for good reason. You've once again fallen for creationist propaganda that came up with this absurd notion that one has to see every aspect of history, otherwise it's all up for speculation. This is a recent phenomena, I'm sure, given how creationists have lost the debate entirely regarding scientific principles. Just another case of creationists scraping to gather up as much support as possible from the remaining scraps of philosophy left to them.

And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that if I ask you about any eyewitness testimonies that are actually worth a damn, you'd probably point either to scriptures (which have been heavily edited, and aren't even verified to have eyewitness testimonies that can be reliably certain about history), or you'd say that your god was the eyewitness (a being which hasn't even been demonstrated to exist). I've been through all this nonsense with Ken Ham's abysmal performance in his debates, so I'm really not interested in going through this song and dance with you. Boring arguments I've heard thousands of times that amount to clever rhetoric that only serves to make your fellow creationists grin smugly aren't worth much here. Give me something new. Give me an argument you can actually come up with off the top of your head that relies on critical thinking and skepticism. Give me anything that shows you aren't just using rehearsed one-liners handed down by the pulpit and apologists who don't know what they're talking about. Please, I'm dying for someone who knows that a debate is about intellectual stimulation.

Speaking of arguments regarding science and of evidence-based reasoning, I can if you ask, point to you much information from scientists that very well supports creation truth scientifically. But would you accept it?

You'd have to show me this "information," first. Since my post has already shredded to pieces all the arguments against higher complexity, I'm convinced you'll have to gather up some other strawman form of evolutionary theory to attack, which I'll be obliged to tear down. If you want to learn about evolutionary theory, start thinking when you read posts explaining it. I can only do this so much.

Our opposed speech at this moment only again serves as another example of the very strong, captivating effects of the opposing worldviews. Movement from one to the other is involvement in an internal fight of conscience.
Earl

I'm really not interested in you spinning this into twisted form of rhetoric where you effectively say, "Teehee, we're both just as stubborn as the other (though I leave it up in the air if I'm actually stubborn at all), so why don't we agree neither is gonna get through the opposing worldview?" I understand the creationist arguments intimately, I understand the religious arrogance that comes into play to defend the failed arguments supporting creationism, and I understand the manipulative rhetoric creationists like you use to wiggle out of doing your part and actually playing by the rules of debate: substantiating your argument with evidence, addressing arguments as they are presented, and not going into a long rant about who's going to hell when that isn't even relevant to the topic.

Before you make another inconsequential non-sequitur, or a red herring, or just ignore the actual meaning of my post so you can supplant it with your narrative, I ask that you take the time to study up on this theory of evolution. Learn about what it actually says. I can help you learn. It's a marvelous science that opens the door to countless new ideas, and one which doesn't ask the world of you. It doesn't tell you to abandon your morals, or give up on irrelevant beliefs. You can take it, play with it, and explore how your beliefs help shape the conversation on evolutionary theory in productive and intellectual ways. But to get to that stage, you have to be able to understand what I'm saying. Try, Erexsaur. Please.

These aren't videos meant to supplant my argument. They don't drive the point home, they don't do anything except provide you a starting point for learning about evolution. Watching these videos is optional... But if you do watch them, it at least means you're trying to be informed about the other side of the debate.

How Evolution Works

What is DNA and How Does it Work?

What is a gene?

What is evolution?

What is natural selection?

What is the evidence for evolution?

Common misconceptions about evolution

What caused life's major evolutionary transitions? <- This is especially relevant.

Your turn.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

Hello Kenisaw,

The Vedas reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Egyptian Mythology reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Why don't the writings from those religions have "all authority"?

Among many, many gods and much mythology, is there not one God that’s true? The issue at hand appears to be whether God of the Bible is trusted and believed as supreme or if He is only seen as another of countless idols unworthy of our attention. As for me, I'm glad I gave and am still giving Him my attention!

Is there one god creature that's true, out of all of them? I've never found a reason to think that. Every single one of them is devoid of evidence supporting their claimed existence. Your selection of your "god" verses the other gods (that you call "idols") seems to be based on nothing more than baseless conjecture on your part.

Let me guess: Evolution isn't "true science"? How about radiometric dating?

We gain knowledge for our technology through repeatable operational science. Through historical science (such as the study of fossils), we are only able to forensically analyze the effects of the unrepeatable past on objects we have at the present.

There is no such thing as operational verses historical science. That is a made-up demarcation by creationists. Ken Ham even admitted that to Bill Nye. The scientific theory of evolution makes predictions that are found to be true. It is supported by billions of fossils and the entire field of genetics (two completely different lines of research, by the way, that independently confirm evolution). Evolution is repeatable because it is still going on today.

Is this easy? Is radiometric dating error-free? Are its interpreters error-free to assure that evolution is a fact?

No, radiometric dating is not error free. That's why no one assumes that a radioactive isotope found in a sample of rock is automatically usable as a way to date something. In fact experiments have been done on things like pillow basalt rocks in Hawaii from lava flows that happened on known dates, just to see if the argon in those rocks is suitable for radiometric dating. Turns out it isn't, because of contamination from volcanic gases, so science knows those types of rocks with argon in them are not dateable that way. That's the kind of effort that is made to ensure quality dating with radioactive isotopes.

But the techniques and methods used on samples of rocks that aren't contaminated, and especially the ones with multiple types of isotopes to test, have been validated time and again as being accurate and reliable. It's mathematically impossible for radioactive decay rates to have changed over time, so the dates we get from samples are highly accurate.

We don't even need radiometric dating anymore to prove evolution, now that genetics exists. Genetics proves it all by itself. Genetics independently confirmed what we already knew from geology, paleontology, and biology...

Our warring worldviews between us tend to complicate communication and agreement on the realities of life. Even though superficially appearing to be over science versus religion, the worldview battle is fundamentally over who is Boss.

The battle is fundamentally one of what can be verified and validated to be true. It's about accuracy and dependability. There's no verification for dogmatic claims of magic, there's a ton of it for science. That's what it all boils down to.

According to the Bible-centered worldview that’s based on the Biblical Genesis account, God is the Big Boss and His commandments are settled from day zero. Order is thus established accordingly.

Yep, and that view ignores loads of illogical contradictions about it, is baseless and devoid of empirical support, and is no different from every other religion in existence that you dismiss as less than your flavor of belief system.

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded as implied by belief in evolution and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish, irrational, and irrelevant. Consequently, anything goes! The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities. Ultimate truth is sought after by debate after debate after debate ad infinitum never to arrive at a solution. But beware of the possibility of a subtle, innocent appearing leader unaccountable to God of the Bible that may rise up with his “solution� and force it.

Your paragraph quoted above is nothing more than a rambling mish mash of claims that aren't even accurate. "Evolutionary beginnings"? Evolution isn't the start of anything. It't the change in inheritable characteristics in groups of animals over time. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (the start of life) or the Big Bang (start of the universe). I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

"Belief" in Evolution implies disbelief in god? Over half the scientists in America call themselves religious and/or have a belief in a personal god, and almost all of them accept evolution as a sound scientific theory. Acceptance of evolution and atheism are not related. They don't go hand in hand. I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

Acceptance of evolution implies that your god is "despised"? How exactly does someone despise something they don't believe in? Tell me, do you despise Santa Claus? How about Zeus? How about the people that do believe in your god and still accept evolution? How are they despising a god? I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities.

I haven't the foggiest idea what this is supposed to mean. If you'd like to add to it, I can address it at a later time.

No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either...

But the Bible is very rich in wisdom that daily guides our logic, actions, and decisions in life that includes scientific work. As God is seen as supreme creator, scientists see themselves as uncovering increasingly deeper secrets of Creation. There's much available to show that the Bible had a huge influence on scientific progress.

Yes, there are many, many other beliefs and gods but the tree is known by its historical fruit. As for God and His word, it is written,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.�

Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and that “God was manifested.� When God is believed sovereign and as having the final say, debates are settled. Who is our personal master? God or man? We may take the truth of God or leave it but choice has its consequences.

Earl

Please note my original statement, which you quoted above: "No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either..."

I see that held as true and accurate. What a stunner...

Hello again Kenisaw,

You said,

Is there one god creature that's true, out of all of them? I've never found a reason to think that. Every single one of them is devoid of evidence supporting their claimed existence. Your selection of your "god" verses the other gods (that you call "idols") seems to be based on nothing more than baseless conjecture on your part.

Have you considered the book called the Bible that informs us? If it happens to be true, the ball is in our park for responsibility to act on it with determination not to stray. Choice whether or not to act has consequences.

There is no such thing as operational verses historical science. That is a made-up demarcation by creationists. Ken Ham even admitted that to Bill Nye. The scientific theory of evolution makes predictions that are found to be true. It is supported by billions of fossils and the entire field of genetics (two completely different lines of research, by the way, that independently confirm evolution). Evolution is repeatable because it is still going on today.

If there’s no operational science then how are things designed? Has anything been designed based on evolutionary principles? Was a tricycle ever designed to evolve into a car?

I appreciate Ken Ham very much. Genesis is the theme of his website that’s full to the brim of supporting knowledge from - DUH – scientists based on scientific data. Do we care to hear?

How does genetics support evolution? Was coded information that’s found in genes generated by natural chance processes? I thought that information is communication from intelligence. Where do we see evolution still going on?

Do billions of fossils contain our entire gamut of earthly knowledge? Is it possible to scientifically repeat an evolutionary advance of a lower species to one that’s higher?

We don't even need radiometric dating anymore to prove evolution, now that genetics exists. Genetics proves it all by itself. Genetics independently confirmed what we already knew from geology, paleontology, and biology...

But why was the topic of radiometric dating brought up?

The battle is fundamentally one of what can be verified and validated to be true. It's about accuracy and dependability. There's no verification for dogmatic claims of magic, there's a ton of it for science. That's what it all boils down to.

Speaking about accuracy and dependability, isn’t there much verification for Biblical claims? Why do we die? Where did the idea of marriage originate? Or is marriage magic? What do the results of the search for exoplanets imply so far? I mentioned it in my post to Clownboat. Is the nation of Israel real? The word “Israel� occurs 2301 times in the Bible. Events in Israel and consequences of how we treat the nation are reflected in the Bible.

Yep, and that view ignores loads of illogical contradictions about it, is baseless and devoid of empirical support, and is no different from every other religion in existence that you dismiss as less than your flavor of belief system.

Please!! You haven’t noticed the abundance of evidence around us that the Bible is true? Speaking of other religions, what god of another religion forgives? Is forgiveness a myth?

Your paragraph quoted above is nothing more than a rambling mish mash of claims that aren't even accurate. "Evolutionary beginnings"? Evolution isn't the start of anything. It't the change in inheritable characteristics in groups of animals over time. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (the start of life) or the Big Bang (start of the universe). I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

"Belief" in Evolution implies disbelief in god? Over half the scientists in America call themselves religious and/or have a belief in a personal god, and almost all of them accept evolution as a sound scientific theory. Acceptance of evolution and atheism are not related. They don't go hand in hand. I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

Acceptance of evolution implies that your god is "despised"? How exactly does someone despise something they don't believe in? Tell me, do you despise Santa Claus? How about Zeus? How about the people that do believe in your god and still accept evolution? How are they despising a god? I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

But don’t we have discernment to know the true God from those that are false? I do. Don’t you? God gave us His word that commands us to trust and obey Him and informs us that He created. The theory of evolution contradicts it. Bible believers that believe what contradicts God’s word do so only by compromise. Are scientists unanimous on evolution? Aren’t there some that have attained data that contradicts it by scientific methodology? I can point to you lots of material contradictory to evolution by scientists if you would care.

If a person receives a draft notice, reads it, fails to believe he is called to service and refuses to comply, how would Uncle Sam see his refusal? Would Uncle Sam be thrown out of existence by the unbelief? Even if you are not an American citizen you are still under a government. God is greater than Uncle Sam.

I haven't the foggiest idea what this is supposed to mean. If you'd like to add to it, I can address it at a later time.

Please! You know what I meant and I need to add nothing to it!

Please note my original statement, which you quoted above: "No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either..."

I see that held as true and accurate. What a stunner...

Would you please inform me of any evolutionary contribution to scientific advancement? Please? Even if not seen on this website, There's lots and lots of information that shows connection between the Bible and Scientific advancements.

Much technology was copied from nature of which we glorify God for His wonderful design of the item duplicated. It takes refusal for one not to see the light to our paths including the scientific path that originates from the unique book called the Bible. Please beware.

Earl

[Clownboat]

Evolution is shown to be true without radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is just another tool that has been used to confirm the fact of evolution.

How? Are scientists unanimous on evolution?

Evolution has been deemed a fact because it has been observed. The theory that describes the fact of evolution is virtually unanimous by scientist that study biology.
However, even if that fact of evolution wasn't unanimous, that does not justify you to then invent another scenario.

Are they unanimous on what the fossils are telling us?

The fossil record supports the theory that describes the fact that creatures evolve. This should also virtually be unanimous.

I think you might be projecting this 'I am the boss' idea, but it is not directly relevant to this discussion. So... moving on.

Even though the person you work for has little effect on your proficiency, don’t you count it important to know the boss you work for and what he stands for? Doesn’t the same principle apply much more to the road of life of which we travel only once.

Please stop projecting your beliefs and make a point if you can.

But this cannot be shown to be a true account and reality shows that the Genesis account is not even remotely accurate. Therefore the Bible centered worldview should be rejected at this time.

Hmmm! Maybe we should reject the fact that we all will die.

You are free to be absurd. Do you have a point though? Why bring up this odd scenario?

But if we on the other hand know that God created all, doesn’t that bring the presupposition that He is the boss of all? We don't have to believe this for it to be true.

Irrelevant. There is not a single person on this planet that I'm aware of that has any knowledge of the gods existing. Why are you bringing up this what if scenario?

They only care about bossing you!!! No worry about mad hippos!

Your conspiracy theories do not impress me. Show me evidence, not what ifs and conspiracy theories.

Even though there are many more ways to despise God other than by evolution, God looks bad in the Old Testament only to those that read and view it out of context.

Is genocide not something that should be despised?
Is slavery not something that should be despised?
Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not.

The bad things we see in the Bible are the consequences of fallen, corrupted humanity that's under a just and merciful God.

You sir, have drank the Kool Aid it seems. The bad things in the Bible are bad by definition. You fearing that your soul will burn in a lake of fire does not justify your acceptance of such despicable acts IMO. You should examine your heart (to use church speak) and ask yourself why you support such evils. We will know them by their fruit, yes?

God punishes unrepentant evil and is merciful to those that turn from evil.

You need to learn about your god concept it seems.
Romans 9:15-18 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

It is by God's love and mercy that He cares even to be bothered with sinful mankind. Heaven could go on undiminished even if no man is saved.

Please stop preaching. You offer nothing to debate and it just makes me wonder why you are unable to follow the rules you agreed to when signing up.

Christians that think God created by evolution (as I once did about the universe) do so only by compromise. They are like baseball players that wear part of the uniform of their team and part of the uniform of the opposing team.

Your opinion is noted. Do you really not care if anyone considers your opinion though? If you do, please offer some evidence. When you can't, please realize how ineffective your words are. Then consider that if you were speaking on behalf of a god, why would he allow you to be so ineffective.

But what are the consequences based on?

Society made the consequences. How can you not know this?

Where does society get its rules?

Societies made their rules. Again, how can you not know this self evident fact?

How does society know it any more wrong for someone to bang you on the head with a sledge hammer than to shoot a rabbit?

I dare say because one is causing harm to a fellow human where the other is likely being done to feed a fellow human (assuming this is not a case of self defense of course). Are you seriously not sure why hitting someone on the head is poor form? If so, thank goodness there are threats of hell to keep people like you in line.

What should keep society from changing the rules to make it OK to bang you?

Nothing keeps societies from changing rules that I'm aware of. What do you claim keeps societies from changing rules? Do you know why you asked this question?

Rhetoric (Uh- Uh- I- I mean “intelligent debate�) has also brought “understanding� that destroyed Adam and Eve’s faith in God’s word given them not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

What claims you enjoy making huh?
DNA analysis points strongly to European Neanderthals and humans from Africa cross breeding. This would require either that 'Adam and Eve' be dated very far back, before human mental attributes could reasonably be argued, or that the highly explanatory African origin model for Homo Sapien sapiens be rejected.
...most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

Where are you now? Have you arrived at such a great level of intellect that you are now “free� to place creationists like me (po lil me! Weep! Weep!) into the buffoon category?

I would encourage you not to be concerned with my opinion of you.
However, since you cannot evidence a creation, Adam or Eve nor a global flood, you should be willing to examine why you hold such beliefs. Being scared of going to hell should not be enough.

Congrats-lations! Will that bring you to the place where you say you would like to be in your last post? ("To live a long life enjoying my family and friends. To leave a positive impact on those around me. ")

If my posts help some readers to avoid mythical beliefs, then I believe I have had a positive impact.

You have the cart before the horse. Please show that your god concept is truth, otherwise you are no different then a Muslim claiming that Allah is truth.

Perhaps that is the point. You are no more credible than a Muslim or any religious person making claims about their preferred god concept. You don't seem to understand this, but you still have the arrogance to claim that you know it is evolution that causes people to despise your god concept. How are you different then a Muslim yelling over and over Allahu Akbar?

I'm not talking about preferred god concepts. I'm talking about trust in the God that's true. We have the discernment to know whose True.

I know, and you are no different then a Muslim joining a debate site so they can preach their preferred beliefs. Why are you no different then the said Muslim? Is it not a red flag at all that you proselytize just like those for whom you would claim worship a false god? It's all very telling for me.

Does the field of science give us any hint of the presence of the True God of the Bible?

Yes, yes, yes... We all know how proud you are to believe in your preferred god, but what does science have to do with this 'presence of your preferred god concept'?

With a sample size of exoplanets now over 3000 (although a drop in the bucket among the total number of stars), no system has yet been found to even closely rival our life-supporting solar system.

What can we deduce from this?

Neither has a star been found among sun-like stars that would serve as a suitable replacement for our sun.

What can we deduce from this?

Also think of the apparent favor given us of the moon and the sun at the correct relative critical sizes and distances for total solar eclipses. Think of the critical tilt angle of the earth for the best (and not deadly) combination of seasons.

You sound like how water would be amazed at how perfectly it fills a hole.
It seems that we have evolved to survive in the environment that we live in. Do you think it would make more sense for us to evolve in an environment that we cannot survive in? What you find amazing is just plan necessary.

Finally may I please ask if you are really sure that God is usually rejected for lack of evidence including scientific? Or is it face to face by choice?

The gods are not rejected. So far, the evidence for all the gods is found wanting, thus belief is not possible. Therefore no rejection is required. It would be great if you understood this from this post if nothing else.

[Kenisaw]

Hello again Kenisaw,

You said,

Is there one god creature that's true, out of all of them? I've never found a reason to think that. Every single one of them is devoid of evidence supporting their claimed existence. Your selection of your "god" verses the other gods (that you call "idols") seems to be based on nothing more than baseless conjecture on your part.

Have you considered the book called the Bible that informs us? If it happens to be true, the ball is in our park for responsibility to act on it with determination not to stray. Choice whether or not to act has consequences.

Have you considered the Vedas, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Norse poetry, and so forth that informs us? If any of those happen to be true, the ball is in our park for responsibility to act on them with determination not to stray. Choice whether or not to act has consequences.

Have you acted on any of those? The answer is of course no, you haven't. Why haven't you? Because you don't believe in them. You believe in the Bible god and none of the others, and the reason you give is, basically, that you better just in case it is the right one. That's called Pascal's Wager, look it up.

The illogical part of Pascal's Wager, however, is that there is nothing about any particular god creature or corresponding religion that has more factual support than any of the other ones. So in order to properly take Pascal's Wager, you'd need to believe in ALL of them. Otherwise you haven't really covered all your bases, have you.

Which was the whole point of that original statement of mine that you have quoted above. None of the multitudes of god beings and belief systems that man has followed over the years has any proof for it. None. That you've picked the Bible as your choice has nothing to do with evidence or data, but is purely a speculative stab at one of the thousands of choices that was probably influenced by where you were born, who your parents are, and who you've associated with in your life.

You can follow it all you want, that's your right and your business. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that your belief is something more than an irrational application of Pascal's Wager, because it isn't.

There is no such thing as operational verses historical science. That is a made-up demarcation by creationists. Ken Ham even admitted that to Bill Nye. The scientific theory of evolution makes predictions that are found to be true. It is supported by billions of fossils and the entire field of genetics (two completely different lines of research, by the way, that independently confirm evolution). Evolution is repeatable because it is still going on today.

If there’s no operational science then how are things designed? Has anything been designed based on evolutionary principles? Was a tricycle ever designed to evolve into a car?

Design is not science. Design is applying what we've learned in science into practical applications that we can use in daily life. I happen to know this because I am an engineer, and that's what we do. Engineers are not scientists. We use scientific knowledge to design useful stuff.

To answer your second question, yes. Vaccines are one. There are also programs called evolutionary algorithms used to solve complex technical problems that contain many criteria. On a broader scope, nearly every new product does through an evolutionary process - it's called product testing. (You could have googled all this by the way, instead of having someone else answer it for you).

I appreciate Ken Ham very much. Genesis is the theme of his website that’s full to the brim of supporting knowledge from - DUH – scientists based on scientific data. Do we care to hear?

I've already heard it all big boy. You are not the first person at this website (or any other website) to champion the pseudo science garbage at AIG. But I do not want you to think we can't discuss something from that useless website. Please, by all means, pick your favorite AIG claim and post it, and let's hold a discussion between you and me.

How does genetics support evolution? Was coded information that’s found in genes generated by natural chance processes? I thought that information is communication from intelligence. Where do we see evolution still going on?

Do billions of fossils contain our entire gamut of earthly knowledge? Is it possible to scientifically repeat an evolutionary advance of a lower species to one that’s higher?

We really need to get your google fixed...

Genetics supports evolution because it shows that all life is related, and it shows how closely each species is related to other species. The fossil record had enough information in it that science was able to create a tree of life, detailing where and when different lines of animals branched off from the first life forms. Genetics verified all of that, using a completely different set of information (sequenced genomes). Two independent fields of research, reaching the same conclusion with totally different sets of data. It's as slam dunk as it gets in science.

DNA is not a code. People use the term "code" as a metaphor so that people can get an idea of what DNA does. But DNA does not act as a computer, or as a code. DNA is a really big molecule that does a bunch of chemical reactions at any given time. That's all it is.

We see evolution going on all over the place. Why do you think there is a new flu vaccine every year?

No, fossils do not represent our entire gamut of earthly knowledge. There's plenty of other earthly knowledge that has nothing to do with evolution or life. I assume you are trying to claim that we can't say evolution is true because we haven't collected every fossil? You'd be wrong. Based on every fossil we've collected so far, we can say that evolution is true. There isn't any data (such as a fossil, or a sequenced genome, or a radiometric date) that disputes evolution. Billions of facts support the scientific theory. Unless someone finds a fossil or other piece of evidence that disputes evolution, or comes up with a better explanation for the billions of facts supporting the theory of evolution, there's no reason to think evolution is wrong.

As to your last question, define lower and higher. What makes one species "higher" than another one?

We don't even need radiometric dating anymore to prove evolution, now that genetics exists. Genetics proves it all by itself. Genetics independently confirmed what we already knew from geology, paleontology, and biology...

But why was the topic of radiometric dating brought up?

Oh radiometric dating works. It's accurate, reliable, and used all the time. I was just pointing out that you don't have to even bring up fossils and radiometric dating and so forth to prove evolution. You can do it with genetics, all by itself. Remember, two independent fields of research reaching the same conclusion?

The battle is fundamentally one of what can be verified and validated to be true. It's about accuracy and dependability. There's no verification for dogmatic claims of magic, there's a ton of it for science. That's what it all boils down to.

Speaking about accuracy and dependability, isn’t there much verification for Biblical claims?

Depends on the claim. For some mundane claims, like battles and kings and so forth? Yes. For anything related to magic? No.

Why do we die?

Actually not a simple question. Here's one site to explain the complexity behind some reasons for biological death:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016 ... fb87ee4a48

Where did the idea of marriage originate?

Which kind? Polygamy, like Jacob and his two wives? Monogomy (which wasn't a norm for the western world until 6th century AD) ? Marriage for love, or to increase land ownership, or for political ties? You appear to think "marriage" is defined just one way. It has dozens of different meanings. Here's an actual article about the history of hunter-gatherer marriage practices:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... 19066-g001

Or is marriage magic?

Oh I get it, you seem to think marriage originated in the Bible. Sorry to burst your Bible bubble, but that isn't the case.

What do the results of the search for exoplanets imply so far?

That planets are a common feature around stars, and that planets orbiting in the "goldilocks zone" of their host star are common as well.

I mentioned it in my post to Clownboat. Is the nation of Israel real? The word “Israel� occurs 2301 times in the Bible. Events in Israel and consequences of how we treat the nation are reflected in the Bible.

There's 4599 times the word thou is used. Is "thou" real? Man - 3323 times. Earth - 936 times. People - 1924 times. Child - 1708 times. Peanut - 0 times.

That was fun, thanks for the diversion.

Yep, and that view ignores loads of illogical contradictions about it, is baseless and devoid of empirical support, and is no different from every other religion in existence that you dismiss as less than your flavor of belief system.

Please!! You haven’t noticed the abundance of evidence around us that the Bible is true? Speaking of other religions, what god of another religion forgives? Is forgiveness a myth?

No, I haven't noticed. You see, the Earth isn't flat. The sky is not water held up by a firmament. Plants didn't come before the Sun. The Earth didn't come before stars. Flying creatures didn't come before land animals. Water doesn't turn into wine. People don't live for 3 days inside a whale. There's no proof for global floods, Jews building pyramids, Jews leaving Egypt, first born children dying en mass, corpses coming back to life. Locusts don't have 4 legs. Mustard doesn't grow into a tree, and it doesn't have the smallest seed. Rabbits don't chew cud. Bats are not birds. All I've noticed is the abundance of evidence that contradicts the Bible.

What other gods forgive? Forgiveness is found in the Vedas (Hinduism) by Hindu gods. So the god of Abraham is not the only forgiving one. On a broader note, just about every religion that ever existed allowed for prayer and sacrifice to ask a god to remove their punishment from someone, so obviously forgiveness by a god is not an uncommon trait of divine creatures...

Your paragraph quoted above is nothing more than a rambling mish mash of claims that aren't even accurate. "Evolutionary beginnings"? Evolution isn't the start of anything. It't the change in inheritable characteristics in groups of animals over time. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (the start of life) or the Big Bang (start of the universe). I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

"Belief" in Evolution implies disbelief in god? Over half the scientists in America call themselves religious and/or have a belief in a personal god, and almost all of them accept evolution as a sound scientific theory. Acceptance of evolution and atheism are not related. They don't go hand in hand. I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

Acceptance of evolution implies that your god is "despised"? How exactly does someone despise something they don't believe in? Tell me, do you despise Santa Claus? How about Zeus? How about the people that do believe in your god and still accept evolution? How are they despising a god? I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

But don’t we have discernment to know the true God from those that are false? I do. Don’t you?

I do. It's called logic and reason, and it requires evidence and data. As there is no evidence or data for any of the gods human's have prayed to, the only rational conclusion to reach is that there are no such critters. But you keep on taking Pascal's Wager if you want...

God gave us His word that commands us to trust and obey Him and informs us that He created. The theory of evolution contradicts it.

Actually, billions of facts contradict it. The theory of evolution is just a synopsis of those facts. The theory doesn't contradict the Bible, all the facts contradict the Bible.

Are scientists unanimous on evolution? Aren’t there some that have attained data that contradicts it by scientific methodology? I can point to you lots of material contradictory to evolution by scientists if you would care.

No, scientists are not unanimous on it. There is a fringe minority, less than 2% of all of them, that don't agree. Humans do not ever 100% agree on everything, so this is no surprise. (There is a very small minority of scientists that think the world is flat for that matter). Do any of them have "data that contradicts it by the scientific methodology"? No, they do not. They have alternative explanations for that the facts mean, and all of these claims have been thoroughly debunked by others. If you would like to give us some of your "lots of material" (from AIG no doubt) then present it here in your own words and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

If a person receives a draft notice, reads it, fails to believe he is called to service and refuses to comply, how would Uncle Sam see his refusal? Would Uncle Sam be thrown out of existence by the unbelief? Even if you are not an American citizen you are still under a government. God is greater than Uncle Sam.

I can prove the US government exists. Can you prove your god creature exists? Then you've failed to provide a relevant comparison.

I haven't the foggiest idea what this is supposed to mean. If you'd like to add to it, I can address it at a later time.

Please! You know what I meant and I need to add nothing to it!

Well, no one can say I didn't try to facilitate discussion with you by asking for clarification and additional information. It's usually bad form on here to tell other people what they "know" by the way. I didn't understand your meaning, I asked for more on it, and you refused. So be it...

Please note my original statement, which you quoted above: "No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either..."

I see that held as true and accurate. What a stunner...

Would you please inform me of any evolutionary contribution to scientific advancement? Please? Even if not seen on this website, There's lots and lots of information that shows connection between the Bible and Scientific advancements.

Much technology was copied from nature of which we glorify God for His wonderful design of the item duplicated. It takes refusal for one not to see the light to our paths including the scientific path that originates from the unique book called the Bible. Please beware.

Earl

I already covered this.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 121 by Neatras]

Hello Neatras,

Do I enjoy threatening you with hell? If there’s such a thing as a hell especially for us creationists would you advocate its use?

Please be informed that your damnation is none of the vision of the church of the Living God neither is it any of my vision! None! OK? Even though you may have heard this umpteen times, here's the umpteen and the first: God is all for you and only wants your good!

Thank you for your very graphic videos and the various explanations of how evolution apparently took place. I also saw “Critical Analysis of John Pendleton's Age of the Earth� on Youtube. Thanks for your suggestion,

If you want to learn about evolutionary theory, start thinking when you read posts explaining it.

I did so and questions came to my mind. For example, how were the various changes and the various acts of cooperation spoken of over time orchestrated? Even with the millions of needed critical chemical combinations in place (by evolution), where did the very first living organisms find life?

Why did you complain about my asking for a scientific law that supports evolution? Shouldn’t that have been easy if evolution is a fact? Hmmm. The war goes on. Do I need to tell you about a scientific law that governs everything including evolution that contradicts evolution? Do I need to suggest the video, “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels�? Or would both only be explained away? The worldview war will end for the individual only with surrender of the individual.

Speaking of the main discussion of science without religion as lame, here are two links that center around the issue that should link up to tendency toward the controversy between science and religion.

http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free- ... from-moses

https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10 ... %E2%80%9D/


Earl

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 121 by Neatras]

Hello Neatras,

Do I enjoy threatening you with hell? If there’s such a thing as a hell especially for us creationists would you advocate its use?

Everyone that would hold on to my personal religion (if I invented one) would also go to hell. But he that turns to the gospel must first give up all of his own stuff. Do you remember the scriptural warnings, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes"?

I really do need you to explain how your "vision" is that nobody goes to hell, and yet if anyone follows a "personal religion," or any religion except the "right" one, they would also go to hell.

What I see is a theist posting whatever feels the most convenient. At times, it's a declaration that all heretics/non-believers go to hell, at others it's that their all-merciful deity is so kind and compassionate that damning others is ludicrous. I don't see any apparent consistency in your posts.

Please be informed that your damnation is none of the vision of the church of the Living God neither is it any of my vision! None! OK? Even though you may have heard this umpteen times, here's the umpteen and the first: God is all for you and only wants your good!

You projected characteristics of goodness onto the concept of a god. That's great, but it doesn't advance the discussion one iota. It just shows that when given the opportunity, you're willing to take the nicest, most palatable descriptor of your deity, and slap it onto your own independent concept without cognitive dissonance. It's a mark of progress for your own belief system, but carries no weight in a scientific discussion.

Thank you for your very graphic videos and the various explanations of how evolution apparently took place. I also saw “Critical Analysis of John Pendleton's Age of the Earth� on Youtube. Thanks for your suggestion,

If you want to learn about evolutionary theory, start thinking when you read posts explaining it.

I have many more suggestions, but sadly they are of such vulgarity that I doubt a good christian man would be comfortable listening to hour-long videos peppered with specific points. I can always reference them at appropriate times, but that's for later.

I did so and questions came to my mind. For example, how were the various changes and the various acts of cooperation spoken of over time orchestrated? Even with the millions of needed critical chemical combinations in place (by evolution), where did the very first living organisms find life?

Right, so, I am going to bring up the 3 arguments you raised.

• To show that none of my objections to evolution are on scientific grounds, will you please bring to my attention a scientific law that supports the processes by which a simple organism by mere chance supposedly increased in complexity over long periods of time to become all the species we know today that includes humankind? Just one? Isn't nature around us governed by laws?

• Even though we cannot go back in time to see evolution happen, shouldn't there be some law we may rely on to assure us in the present that it did? Besides, if we are informed that truth is established by one or two witnesses, will you please inform me of anyone that personally witnessed the millions of years of evolution that took place?

• Speaking of arguments regarding science and of evidence-based reasoning, I can if you ask, point to you much information from scientists that very well supports creation truth scientifically. But would you accept it?

I will assume, because you have not brought it up since, that you are now aware that eyewitness testimony is of little import. We'll mark that one off the list, unless you can provide a compelling argument for why eyewitness testimony should be used.

We'll get to the "sources" you brought up in due time.

(The reason I'm bringing this up is because you are, effectively, trying to change the subject matter. Rather than continue with your earlier line of inquiry, you instead looked at what I wrote and immediately came up with new avenues to attack it, as if you had rehearsed what you would say based on buzzwords you read. This isn't a good thing. I wish you would stick with the arguments and not move on until you understood why I used specific arguments to counter.)

But the first argument, the one that is basically you asking for a law that makes evolution happen... I'm sorry to say it, but you clearly haven't actually comprehended my post if you are going to so blithely repeat what you wrote earlier, but in so many different words.

Why did you complain about my asking for a scientific law that supports evolution?

And this is the crux of the issue. You are like our old friend shnarkle. Rather than accept evidence of something actually occurring in nature, you insist that we actually show you a law that says "and so evolution happens." But this is really... really unscientific. There is no law of ATP synthesis. ATP synthesis is a result of chemistry. There is no law of computing that declares which language does what and how, but it's dependent on Boolean logic, which has foundations in mathematics. There is no law of architecture, but we ground our application of engineering in physics. The culmination of physical forces we observe give rise to phenomena; the physical behaviors we then observe are results of different combinations of physical forces, the properties of constituent elements, and the overall emergence of unique behaviors as we increase the scale from the microscopic to macroscopic. Water behaves the way it does, even if each individual water molecule isn't notably "wet." Wetness of water is what we call an "emergent property," in that the combination of all known physical laws give rise to new behaviors when the scale is large enough; instead of a single water molecule, an enormous amount of water molecules move in a manner that gives the object we observe -a specific volume of water- the tendency to slide over surfaces, have surface tension, freeze at low temperatures, boil at high temperatures, etc.

The point is, simple rules can give rise to complex behaviors, not because of intelligent interference, but because when you have any amount of matter, which is constantly being affected not just by the 4 fundamental forces, but by the physical effect of all matter around it, that causes it to behave in sometimes very counterintuitive ways. We'll never have a law that explains this because, in reality, it's just an observation about the universe.

You wanna know what makes evolution happen? Chemistry. That's all it's ever been. What's most important about this exchange is that I've hand-wrapped the information you need. I showed you how higher order complexities can emerge. This is literally what you asked for, but I don't detect even a hint of awareness that what you're doing is now moving the goalposts to an even more confusing position. This shaky epistemology doesn't actually make discourse more productive. It's harmful to our discussion if you keep trying to pull back from "show me evidence that complexity increases" to "show me a law that says evolution will happen" the moment I show evidence that complexity increases.

Shouldn’t that have been easy if evolution is a fact? Hmmm. The war goes on.

The war is against ideas that evolutionary theory must actually exist as some kind of hidden code in the cosmos, otherwise it doesn't happen.

Do I need to tell you about a scientific law that governs everything including evolution that contradicts evolution? Do I need to suggest the video, “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels�? Or would both only be explained away? The worldview war will end for the individual only with surrender of the individual.

I'd appreciate if you could actually present the arguments. Even when I link to outside sources, when it comes to the discussion, I gave the arguments myself with context. The sources at the end that I linked were all for the stated purpose of giving you opportunities to learn about evolutionary theory. What you're doing is trying to argue against my position with a reference, but not actually presenting the argument. If you want me to explain it away, give me something to look at. And just to put you at ease: Scientific theories are meant to be comprehensive. If you wanna pout and say it's not a good thing for scientists to look at supposed blind spots and actually enunciate why your position is wrong, then that's another point where discourse breaks down. Everything I do is for the stated purpose of making it easier to understand the material, while also giving real examples. I don't see how that's remotely comparable to the way you've argued. So what is your point?

Speaking of the main discussion of science without religion as lame, here are two links that center around the issue that should link up to tendency toward the controversy between science and religion.

http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free- ... from-moses

https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10 ... %E2%80%9D/


Earl

Okay, so... You want me to go find the arguments for you so I can argue against them. Or maybe you're hoping I don't open those links so you can state triumphantly that I can't argue against them. Or maybe you're just bored. Either way, this discussion has hit a standstill despite my best efforts to give educational information. I remain unconvinced that you've learned anything about evolutionary theory. And I mean this sincerely: I've never heard a creationist actually repeat back the information I provide in a scientifically literate manner that reflects critical thinking and logical reasoning.

My challenge to you is: Please tell me what mechanisms that are proposed by scientists result in new organelles appearing in a cell. Please tell me by what mechanisms that are proposed by scientists that causes unique/novel gene functions to emerge. You don't even need to say they're correct. Just show me you can understand what information I give to you by reciting in your own words the facts I've presented.

You can be as passive aggressive as you want. This isn't me saying how your behavior has been. This is me giving a free pass to literally tell me what I've said, in whatever tone suits your fancy. Polite, rude, any of it is fine and I won't report it. Just so long as you can, in some way, show me you understand more about evolutionary theory now than you did before.

After that, feel free to tell me any arguments you have that argue evolution couldn't have occurred because of physical forces/entropy/whatever. I'd love to get into that, but the longer this goes on, the more I have to wonder if you're really just skimming my posts, looking for buzzwords, and latching onto those with rehearsed apologetics.

[Erexsaur]

Evolution is shown to be true without radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is just another tool that has been used to confirm the fact of evolution.

How? Are scientists unanimous on evolution?

Evolution has been deemed a fact because it has been observed. The theory that describes the fact of evolution is virtually unanimous by scientist that study biology.
However, even if that fact of evolution wasn't unanimous, that does not justify you to then invent another scenario.

Are they unanimous on what the fossils are telling us?

The fossil record supports the theory that describes the fact that creatures evolve. This should also virtually be unanimous.

I think you might be projecting this 'I am the boss' idea, but it is not directly relevant to this discussion. So... moving on.

Even though the person you work for has little effect on your proficiency, don’t you count it important to know the boss you work for and what he stands for? Doesn’t the same principle apply much more to the road of life of which we travel only once.

Please stop projecting your beliefs and make a point if you can.

But this cannot be shown to be a true account and reality shows that the Genesis account is not even remotely accurate. Therefore the Bible centered worldview should be rejected at this time.

Hmmm! Maybe we should reject the fact that we all will die.

You are free to be absurd. Do you have a point though? Why bring up this odd scenario?

But if we on the other hand know that God created all, doesn’t that bring the presupposition that He is the boss of all? We don't have to believe this for it to be true.

Irrelevant. There is not a single person on this planet that I'm aware of that has any knowledge of the gods existing. Why are you bringing up this what if scenario?

They only care about bossing you!!! No worry about mad hippos!

Your conspiracy theories do not impress me. Show me evidence, not what ifs and conspiracy theories.

Even though there are many more ways to despise God other than by evolution, God looks bad in the Old Testament only to those that read and view it out of context.

Is genocide not something that should be despised?
Is slavery not something that should be despised?
Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not.

The bad things we see in the Bible are the consequences of fallen, corrupted humanity that's under a just and merciful God.

You sir, have drank the Kool Aid it seems. The bad things in the Bible are bad by definition. You fearing that your soul will burn in a lake of fire does not justify your acceptance of such despicable acts IMO. You should examine your heart (to use church speak) and ask yourself why you support such evils. We will know them by their fruit, yes?

God punishes unrepentant evil and is merciful to those that turn from evil.

You need to learn about your god concept it seems.
Romans 9:15-18 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

It is by God's love and mercy that He cares even to be bothered with sinful mankind. Heaven could go on undiminished even if no man is saved.

Please stop preaching. You offer nothing to debate and it just makes me wonder why you are unable to follow the rules you agreed to when signing up.

Christians that think God created by evolution (as I once did about the universe) do so only by compromise. They are like baseball players that wear part of the uniform of their team and part of the uniform of the opposing team.

Your opinion is noted. Do you really not care if anyone considers your opinion though? If you do, please offer some evidence. When you can't, please realize how ineffective your words are. Then consider that if you were speaking on behalf of a god, why would he allow you to be so ineffective.

But what are the consequences based on?

Society made the consequences. How can you not know this?

Where does society get its rules?

Societies made their rules. Again, how can you not know this self evident fact?

How does society know it any more wrong for someone to bang you on the head with a sledge hammer than to shoot a rabbit?

I dare say because one is causing harm to a fellow human where the other is likely being done to feed a fellow human (assuming this is not a case of self defense of course). Are you seriously not sure why hitting someone on the head is poor form? If so, thank goodness there are threats of hell to keep people like you in line.

What should keep society from changing the rules to make it OK to bang you?

Nothing keeps societies from changing rules that I'm aware of. What do you claim keeps societies from changing rules? Do you know why you asked this question?

Rhetoric (Uh- Uh- I- I mean “intelligent debate�) has also brought “understanding� that destroyed Adam and Eve’s faith in God’s word given them not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

What claims you enjoy making huh?
DNA analysis points strongly to European Neanderthals and humans from Africa cross breeding. This would require either that 'Adam and Eve' be dated very far back, before human mental attributes could reasonably be argued, or that the highly explanatory African origin model for Homo Sapien sapiens be rejected.
...most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

Where are you now? Have you arrived at such a great level of intellect that you are now “free� to place creationists like me (po lil me! Weep! Weep!) into the buffoon category?

I would encourage you not to be concerned with my opinion of you.
However, since you cannot evidence a creation, Adam or Eve nor a global flood, you should be willing to examine why you hold such beliefs. Being scared of going to hell should not be enough.

Congrats-lations! Will that bring you to the place where you say you would like to be in your last post? ("To live a long life enjoying my family and friends. To leave a positive impact on those around me. ")

If my posts help some readers to avoid mythical beliefs, then I believe I have had a positive impact.

You have the cart before the horse. Please show that your god concept is truth, otherwise you are no different then a Muslim claiming that Allah is truth.

Perhaps that is the point. You are no more credible than a Muslim or any religious person making claims about their preferred god concept. You don't seem to understand this, but you still have the arrogance to claim that you know it is evolution that causes people to despise your god concept. How are you different then a Muslim yelling over and over Allahu Akbar?

I'm not talking about preferred god concepts. I'm talking about trust in the God that's true. We have the discernment to know whose True.

I know, and you are no different then a Muslim joining a debate site so they can preach their preferred beliefs. Why are you no different then the said Muslim? Is it not a red flag at all that you proselytize just like those for whom you would claim worship a false god? It's all very telling for me.

Does the field of science give us any hint of the presence of the True God of the Bible?

Yes, yes, yes... We all know how proud you are to believe in your preferred god, but what does science have to do with this 'presence of your preferred god concept'?

With a sample size of exoplanets now over 3000 (although a drop in the bucket among the total number of stars), no system has yet been found to even closely rival our life-supporting solar system.

What can we deduce from this?

Neither has a star been found among sun-like stars that would serve as a suitable replacement for our sun.

What can we deduce from this?

Also think of the apparent favor given us of the moon and the sun at the correct relative critical sizes and distances for total solar eclipses. Think of the critical tilt angle of the earth for the best (and not deadly) combination of seasons.

You sound like how water would be amazed at how perfectly it fills a hole.
It seems that we have evolved to survive in the environment that we live in. Do you think it would make more sense for us to evolve in an environment that we cannot survive in? What you find amazing is just plan necessary.

Finally may I please ask if you are really sure that God is usually rejected for lack of evidence including scientific? Or is it face to face by choice?

The gods are not rejected. So far, the evidence for all the gods is found wanting, thus belief is not possible. Therefore no rejection is required. It would be great if you understood this from this post if nothing else.

Hello Clownboat,

Evolution has been deemed a fact because it has been observed. The theory that describes the fact of evolution is virtually unanimous by scientist that study biology.
However, even if that fact of evolution wasn't unanimous, that does not justify you to then invent another scenario.

How can anyone supposedly unaninously deem anything as fact while unconditionally ignoring and verbally demoting all scientists that oppose? What’s so bad about my scenarios? I like sharing them.

There is not a single person on this planet that I'm aware of that has any knowledge of the gods existing. Why are you bringing up this what if scenario?

You know you are aware! I and others know that God exists. You have the power to believe or disbelieve what you were informed of.

However, since you cannot evidence a creation, Adam or Eve nor a global flood, you should be willing to examine why you hold such beliefs. Being scared of going to hell should not be enough.

Aren’t you able to take my or anyone’s word that a forest of evidence as well as witnesses are all around us? Please don’t let all of those trees block your view of it. You were at least told. I thought that a word to the wise is sufficient. The transformed life of the believer delivers him from bondage from the fear of hell.

Is genocide not something that should be despised?
Is slavery not something that should be despised?
Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not.

Is there not a difference between ones heeding what he is told and calling himself trying to debate it off? Continue to ignore advice against and think that God is guilty of the atrocities of man of which prompted Him to judge societies and thus keep yourself from His delivering you from the cause for Him to judge you. OK?

From your speech, it doesn’t appear to me that you learned very much of God and the gospel at the place you left. Who or what did you leave?

I dare say because one is causing harm to a fellow human where the other is likely being done to feed a fellow human (assuming this is not a case of self defense of course). Are you seriously not sure why hitting someone on the head is poor form? If so, thank goodness there are threats of hell to keep people like you in line.

Beyond fear of punishment, things like love of neighbor and respect for the sanctity of human life keep me in line. What’s keeping you in line? Is love for neighbor a commandment of a mythical character to you?

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 124 by Kenisaw]

Hello Kenisaw,

Have you considered the Vedas, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Norse poetry, and so forth that informs us? If any of those happen to be true, the ball is in our park for responsibility to act on them with determination not to stray. Choice whether or not to act has consequences. Have you acted on any of those? The answer is of course no, you haven't. Why haven't you? Because you don't believe in them. You believe in the Bible god and none of the others, and the reason you give is, basically, that you better just in case it is the right one. That's called Pascal's Wager, look it up.

Whoa!
I trust and believe in God of the Bible because I know that He is the one God, not just in case. I only ask have you considered what you know of because you were informed. So was I informed of God beginning with my mother, then preachers and witnesses.

God lives to send His witnesses to inform. As I acted on what I received, I personally witnessed His presence for myself. As for convincing me otherwise, too late!! You and I agree that we act on what we know and most of what we know is based on what we were told.

But belief in evolution necessitates not only unbelief in, but placement of God in the category of unreal idols apart from His uniqueness and sovereignty. You wouldn’t do that to your parents would you? May I ask if you would please not be deceived?

The illogical part of Pascal's Wager, however, is that there is nothing about any particular god creature or corresponding religion that has more factual support than any of the other ones. So in order to properly take Pascal's Wager, you'd need to believe in ALL of them. Otherwise you haven't really covered all your bases, have you.

Pascal’s wager only describes why it would be much better to trust God and His word before exiting this life with no option to return than not to trust. I think it’s a very sensible risk assessment. Don’t you? Why should it discourage? But the real reason one should trust and turn to God extends far beyond this simple logic! Been there done that? If that’s the case, you never knew Him while you were "there."

Pascal spoke only of God of the Bible. Please tell me. If you found a precious diamond in a pile of cheap rhinestones, would you refuse to believe it of any better worth than the rhinestones and thus reject it? Please? Did a believer in Zeus obligate himself to believe in the many other gods also? Weren’t we told the impossibility of serving more than one master?

Which was the whole point of that original statement of mine that you have quoted above. None of the multitudes of god beings and belief systems that man has followed over the years has any proof for it. None. That you've picked the Bible as your choice has nothing to do with evidence or data, but is purely a speculative stab at one of the thousands of choices that was probably influenced by where you were born, who your parents are, and who you've associated with in your life.

The Bible is preached and the hearer is commanded to trust and believe. He that refuses simply misses out on Him that’s true. God makes wise the individual that becomes a fool for Him. Can material science prove anything beyond the natural? May I please again caution you that the Bible reveals that people reject God face to face, not because of doubt? They prefer to continue in the wrong they are warned against.

Is God real? The Bible promised that only the pure in heart sees God. Is your heart pure? What does it mean to be pure in heart? It does not mean that one has forced himself to be nicey-nicey because someone threatened him with hell. It means ones simple, honest confession without reservation that he falls short. We are all weighed down by something we know within ourselves that displeases God.

Do you remember the thief on the cross beside Jesus? Although starting out mocking Jesus, he suddenly realized himself worthy to be condemned compared with the innocence of Jesus he mocked and consequently saw the man Jesus as God that’s forgiving and boldly asked for forgiveness. Who was he, a condemned criminal to ask Jesus to remember him in His kingdom? As he supernaturally saw Jesus as God, so did he supernaturally realize his last minute opportunity to be forgiven.

You can follow it all you want, that's your right and your business. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that your belief is something more than an irrational application of Pascal's Wager, because it isn't.

My application of Pascal's Wager is rational.

Design is not science. Design is applying what we've learned in science into practical applications that we can use in daily life. I happen to know this because I am an engineer, and that's what we do. Engineers are not scientists. We use scientific knowledge to design useful stuff.

To answer your second question, yes. Vaccines are one. There are also programs called evolutionary algorithms used to solve complex technical problems that contain many criteria. On a broader scope, nearly every new product does through an evolutionary process - it's called product testing. (You could have googled all this by the way, instead of having someone else answer it for you).

But isn’t product testing done by intelligent individuals instead of chance? How did the algorithms originate? Is chance smart enough to create?

I’m happy to know I’m talking to an engineer. I spent my career as a technician testing for engineers. But don’t engineers use what scientists have learned for us?


In response to my statement, "I appreciate Ken Ham very much. Genesis is the theme of his website that’s full to the brim of supporting knowledge from - DUH – scientists based on scientific data. Do we care to hear?", you said,

I've already heard it all big boy. You are not the first person at this website (or any other website) to champion the pseudo science garbage at AIG. But I do not want you to think we can't discuss something from that useless website. Please, by all means, pick your favorite AIG claim and post it, and let's hold a discussion between you and me.

You are not willing to hear me or creationist scientists out before explaining away what's said! As long as you are sure that knowledge according to your worldview is undeniably factual and that truth always trumps mistruth, why do you find it so necessary to unconditionally hold grudges against all that oppose you including the fine people at AIG? What’s the need to always verbally demote creationist scientists? Is that practice scientifically kosher? Why aren’t you confident that what you count as the real truth won’t eventually reveal itself to them? I thought that science unities instead of wedging people apart.

Truth appears as a lie to a lie and a lie appears as a lie to truth. Matter appears as antimatter to antimatter and antimatter appears as antimatter to matter. The same is true with us with our worldviews.

There's a vast difference between the fate of each of those that hold these opposing worldviews.


Earl

[Clownboat]

Evolution has been deemed a fact because it has been observed. The theory that describes the fact of evolution is virtually unanimous by scientist that study biology.
However, even if that fact of evolution wasn't unanimous, that does not justify you to then invent another scenario.

How can anyone supposedly unaninously deem anything as fact while unconditionally ignoring and verbally demoting all scientists that oppose? What’s so bad about my scenarios? I like sharing them.

What you like or don't like is irrelevant.
That populations of species change over time is an observed fact. This is evolution.
Feel free to present a mechanism that would stop these changes from occurring at some point. If you cannot, then it is logical that small changes will equal large changes over time. Otherwise you might as well claim to believe in minutes, but not hours.

There is not a single person on this planet that I'm aware of that has any knowledge of the gods existing. Why are you bringing up this what if scenario?

You know you are aware! I and others know that God exists. You have the power to believe or disbelieve what you were informed of.

It seems that you are delusional, since I in fact am not aware that any of the proposed gods exist. I also don't have the capability to disbelieve in things that I know to be true. Therefore you are also wrong on that point.

However, since you cannot evidence a creation, Adam or Eve nor a global flood, you should be willing to examine why you hold such beliefs. Being scared of going to hell should not be enough.

Aren’t you able to take my or anyone’s word that a forest of evidence as well as witnesses are all around us?

I am unable to just believe the un-evidenced, random words from some random person on the internet.
If this is truly good enough for you, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'll sell to you for super cheap.

Please don’t let all of those trees block your view of it.

Of what? Please be specific.

You were at least told.

Yes, you told me (made an empty claim) about some forest of evidence. I cannot just believe your claim until you show that you speak the truth. I think there is a reason that you claim 'forest' yet cannot even show me as much as a 'tree'.

I thought that a word to the wise is sufficient.

You thought wrong and who is the wise person you are now referring to?

The transformed life of the believer delivers him from bondage from the fear of hell.

Demonstrably false by the fact that only believers in hell fear this hell.
Transform your life from a believer to a non-believer and you will also be freed from this fear of hell.

Is genocide not something that should be despised?
Is slavery not something that should be despised?
Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not.

Is there not a difference between ones heeding what he is told and calling himself trying to debate it off?

Perhaps, but now you are just dodging the question:
"Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not."

Continue to ignore advice against and think that God is guilty of the atrocities of man of which prompted Him to judge societies and thus keep yourself from His delivering you from the cause for Him to judge you. OK?

Ok? No, this is not OK. Preaching is against the rules.

From your speech, it doesn’t appear to me that you learned very much of God and the gospel at the place you left.

And ironically, you haven't taught me anything about this god concept that you have. You have mentioned trees and forests though.

Who or what did you leave?

I was a born again, spirit filled, tongue talking, drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing (foreign and abroad) Christian for 2 decades. It took me a while to figure out that I only 'claimed' to have a relationship with a god.
Being set free from my beliefs was the hardest thing I have ever done.

I dare say because one is causing harm to a fellow human where the other is likely being done to feed a fellow human (assuming this is not a case of self defense of course). Are you seriously not sure why hitting someone on the head is poor form? If so, thank goodness there are threats of hell to keep people like you in line.

Beyond fear of punishment, things like love of neighbor and respect for the sanctity of human life keep me in line. What’s keeping you in line? Is love for neighbor a commandment of a mythical character to you?

It's the commandment of many mythical characters and also of some real ones. What is your point? I get the impression that for some reason you think this is a Christian concept. You are mistaken.