The Fall!

[POI]

Otseng stated "Yes, I believe the fall is a thing. As for why, it is out of scope for the current discussion, but can be addressed later."

Your wish has been granted.

For debate: Outside the claim being made from an ancient human writing, why is the assertion of 'the fall' a real thing?

[TRANSPONDER]

I emphasize toddlers cause they are the ones that needs guidance. Infant / newborn - Just born Baby - Hasn't been alive for long Toddler - 1-2-3 yrs Child - 3-12 years old Teen - 13-19 years old Adult - 20-60 years old.
You mentioned, "get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not". At least now you accept that teach/guidance indeed needed to a growing toddler. In contrast to atheist stand on unguided evolution. Creator God informed/guided His creations what are foods to them, so the theist parents likewise.

This is what you've said, "The evolutionary process is mindless , and experimental, which is why we had extinctions. Yet instincts are there which is why a kid knows to put food in its mouth at all. But in mammals there is an educating process." Root word educate defined as provide or pay for instruction for. So there's another that give instruction/guidance. Again in contrast to atheism unguided evolution.

So which is more preferable belief? unproven Abiogenesis or the proven Jesus.
"Tacitus was a historian and politician of ancient Rome. He wrote extensively about many subjects. The writings of Tacitus on Jesus also exist. Many scholars point to the writings as proof Jesus existed". Atheist are just always in denial about it.

Atheist Alan Sandage then believe that there is sense of purpose of life, that atheism does not have.
And hope that atheism does not know.

Even when small percentage of scientists are theist, it proves that evolution is not a 100% acceptable science.
God fearing population is 5.6B while non-religious, agnostics, atheism combined 1B something.

It seems that understanding the Bible leads away from non-followers of God to believers of God. Sandage included.

So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were non believers of God, that their rationality
comes from irrationality that minds comes from mindless matter.

Atheist John Gray says, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth".

If you will permit, I'll just take the response as the previous post was getting long.
Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god.

So why should we accept an analogy that there is a big invisible parent or mentor telling us what is the thing to do, when there is no decent shred of evidence for it, it isn't necessary as we learn by experience, and - most damning - we disagree about things all the time?


You confuse unguided evolution with conscious teaching. Conditions dictate what survives (and passes on that experience in DNA carried instinct) and formalised teaching, especially as we can see critters being taught by their elders and learning by experience. That social conventions are more complex that pack or tribe behaviour does not make it something different that has to come from a god, especially since - as I said - we come to different conclusions about the same basics. Different human thinking about common basic evolved instincts.

Again what you believe is irrelevant. What support can you make for what you believe?

I'll take Abiogenesis over the Jesus because evolution is as proven as any Reasonable person could require and the unproven abiogenesis has indirect support and a mechanism and method.

There is nothing 'proven' about Jesus but contradictory claims in an old book full of errors and a religion that spread like dozens of others.

Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that is true. It is the transformation of this failed messiah into a sort of god - figure and religion that I do not accept. The contradictions in the resurrection convince me totally that it is an invented claim without reality.

Atheists do not sell false hope based on a fear of dying so far as i can see, We sell reason and evidence, and I can tell you and Prof. Sanwidge that an atheist who understands and accepts reality and the finite life, finds human values more rewarding that the false ones sold by religions. Sometime, we might talk about 'The atheist afterlife' IF, if there is one, we all get it (as a natural thing) and no one religion is selling entry tickets.

Understanding of the Bible equally raises doubts, I can quote for instance Rachel Slick (daughter of Matt Slick, q.v) who, when she tried to argue the Bible to atheists, became atheist. This happens often when Believers can no longer lie to themselves. Which also often happens. I have seen believers deny what the Bible actually says, rather than have any doubt and question.

The Pew study showed that half scientists are atheist. Of those many are theist but not religious. And again others may be religious but accept evolution.

Prof. Tyson gave a talk where he claimed 15% of scientists were Theists. 40% PEW said I recall. 15% Tyson says. Either way, this does not make a case that scientists generally are theists who reject evolution. And evolution (though a ditch to die in for Christian fundamentalism, it seems) is not even relevant as if it was true, one can still be a god -believer and if false, it does not mean that God is the default answer.

I am more than happy to drop the argument you started of trying to claim science for their side, and even the argument from gaps for a god (consciousness, life and cosmic origins) does not get you to a particular religion. However, I still maintain that evolution -theory and the evidence we have supports a natural.materialist hypothesis for the way things work, than a god, name your own.

What John Gray said (supposing it is correct in context) is wrong. He is right that evolution does not lead to truth; it leads to survival, hopefully. It is science that has the track record of discovering truth and religions do not.

Yes I had a quick look. I suspect it is easy to quote this political philosopher out of context, and his views are argued about anyway. It is all about what humans do, and think and that is always arguable. It has nothing useful to say about the reality of evolution - theory.

You've said, "Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god. God guided/teaches His creations of what they are to eat. Unlike atheists stand on unguided evolution. Human's consciousness and freewill though makes man violates God's guidance, its a choice. In contrast to atheism's' view, whom never knew when does human consciousness arise.

Rational Intelligibility of the universe for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence. Throw a pail of marbles in your floor and see their unguided directions, could the law of gravity create a design? Or Hawking's freak accident makes the universe what it is today?

Rational mind is behind to all teachings and guidance, thus how mindless, unguided evolution results to intelligent humans? Not so believable, compare to God who created man into His image. Conscious from the beginning of creation while in atheism, consciousness still a mystery when that arise.

Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
While you say, "Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that
is true". As you accepted Jesus' existence, I may presume that Jesus may have teachings during His lifetime.

Of course atheism won't sell what is the purpose of life and hope. I believe you don't also know what is the meaning of life?

Lee Strobel states he was an atheist author when he began investigating the biblical claims about Jesus Christ after his wife's conversion. Prompted by the results of his investigation, he became a Christian at the age of 29.
We believe our God is all knowing (omniscient) who knows who are His.

Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science.

Maybe because of the loopholes of scientists lack of evidence of evolution, it might leads to the purpose, meaning of life that may lead someone to the hope God offered to those who believe in Him.

You says, "It is science that has the track record of discovering truth". And will be the only source of truth? Which is not a scientific idea.

We do have an explanation of how consciousness arises. Through evolution. It is seen even in animals, and mans' behaviour resembles theirs. You may blame mans' disobedience for doing what we call wrong (falling short of our own ideals) but if animals are the same, that is how God made them - or evolution. Evolution is not moral, but it is real. I would rather try to deal with the hand nature dealt us (as we did with natural limitations) than to ascribe it all to a 'Perfect' god and then try to blame why it isn't perfect on man.

Rational intelligibility or Order; essentially ID. Evolution (chemical evolution) explains this just as biological evolution explains complex working of bioforms. What works, works; what doesn't, goes extinct. What doesn't work with matter doesn't survive. Paley's watchmaker argument also mistakes natural working complexity for design. It isn't.
Again, evolution does explain how life, consciousness and reason arose. There is no need to use a god (name your own) as an easy dismissal of the question. I have never heard that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis. He may have disproved spontaneous creation, which is no more abiogenesis theory than dogs from cats is evolution - theory. Please explain how, if I am wrong.

General discussion now, I see it often happens - 'well what about this next atheist - stumper, then?' Ok. There is No really unquestionable support for a historical Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus or anywhere else. Not even in Paul, 100%. Yet i go with the more credible theory that Paul knew the disciples who knew Jesus, and an invented story would never have had him crucified, unless he was. And thus I credit Tacitus, even if he was only reciting what the Christians claimed, not what he knew.

But I am convinced that Jesus was nothing like the Jesus of the gospels, but was a failed messiah, not a resurrected god. I can see this turning into a discussion of its' own. But the Gabriel stone, IF the reading of a three day resurrection for Simon the rebel while Jesus was still learning his letters is correct, underpins the terminal contradictions of the resurrection - story as an invented claim. Slam. Dunk.

Lee Strobel is a fraud. His 'investigation' as I read it consisted only of apologetics of Bible apologists and not a single doubt and question that any Bible critic would have had. I have them, I shall post them, if we get onto debating the gospel Jesus.

"Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science." My Dude, that was a mere verbal trick. Evolution is 100% science. It just proves that a percentage of scientists can compartmentalise reason and Faith in their heads. The name escapes me, but there is a geology scientist who is a creationist. When he writes geology papers, he uses geological data; when he talks creationism, he uses creationist figures.

Loopholes in evolution (there are far more in the Christian god -claim, I assure you) do not debunk it. The Cetan sequence alone is slam dunk proof of speciation (land critter to whale) in a pretty continuous and undeniable evolutionary progression. Prove speciation once, and you prove it for all. Your effort to use the existing unknowns to pretend that evolution -theory is not adequately supported in a way that Theism can only dream of, and by a hoped - for dismissal, put back placeholder god (name your own, as I said before) is doomed to logical failure, never mind denial by the Faithful.

To repeat, science has the track record of discovering truth, or fact or the best models of reality that explain the data. Religious claims have been ever more debunked, and relies more and more on blinkered denial, including of what the Bible actually says. As one notorious example here had it, that the sun was made after not only the earth, but daylight (Genesis). If Darwin had blundered like that, his book would be in the trash.

My question was when does human consciousness arise? Not how.

What I mean is the Rational Intelligibility of the universe, cause for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence.

Pasteur’s set of experiments irrefutably disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and earned him the prestigious Alhumbert Prize from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862. In a subsequent lecture in 1864, Pasteur articulated “Omne vivum ex vivo” (“Life only comes from life”).https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... Generation

Adduced means served as evidence of certain facts about Jesus, "Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah". (Wikipedia)

He is the Jesus of the four Gospels, it is significant that most scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a known tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The burial in a known tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is considered historical because the Gospels describe Joseph as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus. And the first response by the Jewish leaders clearly admits to Jesus’ body missing from the known tomb.

Lee Strobel's written reply to: How an Atheist Fabricated a Phony Story About Me
"This self-published atheist and “religion critic” doesn’t even try to challenge the story of my conversion. The truth is absolutely as I have always reported it: I was an atheist and Yale-educated legal editor of the Chicago Tribune when my wife’s conversion to Christianity prompted me to investigate the faith for nearly two years. Ultimately, I decided the evidence was too strong to ignore, and I put my trust in Christ on November 8, 1981. Six years later, I left daily journalism to become a pastor".

The mere fact that there are scientists who doesn't believe that science is the only source of truth.
Evolution theory were from those scientists whom replaces God's truth to their only source of truth, that is not a scientific idea. Therefore it is not 100% science.

Charles Darwin may have successfully convinced the world about evolution and natural selection, but did not answer the question posed by his most famous book, ‘On the Origin of Species …’. Since the 1940s, Ernst Mayr has been one of the people who argued for this point of view, claiming that Darwin was not able to answer the question of speciation because he failed to define species properly.
But the Word of God can name the genealogy of Jesus unlike evolution I believe there are still gaps.

If modern scientific theory insists on the possibility of light coming out of empty space (in other words, without light bearing objects), it is inconsistent to criticize the biblical idea that light existed on the first day of creation without sun, moon, or stars . . . The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible. (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).

Your question about when human consciousness arises shows that you do not understand gradual evolution. Reaction gives rise to instinct, instinct gives rise to responding to input. Responses lead to animal co -operation (packs and families) Primate interaction is the basis of human thinking, and place in the tribe to consciousness as it is called. That is the mechanism that makes 'when' meaningless.

Rational intelligibility sounds to me like ID or intelligent creation. While this is a gap for a god, it is more questions about unknowns than proof of a god. Many of the ID arguments are answered or wrong.

Good for Pasteur in debunking spontaneous creation. What he did not demonstrate was Goddunnit Creation. Life comes from non - life all the time. A plant or critter is chemical atoms until it is assembled as a seed or egg, and the activation of that seed or egg is life from non - life. Abiogernesis is the theory of how that process began. It has a mechanism but not proof. Creation has a simplistic claim in an old book full of errors.

Didn't I already explain about Tacitus and Josephus? The Flavian Testament is understood to be partly forgery and I think there is evidence of total forgery. Tacitus reports the Christian claim, which I think is actually true. Not what he knew himself.

There is a real Jesus, but not the Jesus of the gospels. The tomb (there are two claimed tombs at least) is not the tomb of Arimathea as they are in an area already built up in Jesus' time and would be given a new wall in Herod Agrippa's time. All tombs had been emptied and moved to the Mount of Olives. If there is an actual Arimathea tomb, it is up there. And of course, nobody knows which. As to the Jewish leaders, Matthew says that the Jews said that the disciples took the body. If the story is at all true, that is quite likely.

Whatever Lee Strobel says about his conversion, in reading his reasons, he gave only the claims of believers, not a single atheist doubt or question. It is a classic apologetic in claiming to have been an atheist convinced by the evidence, but seemingly ignorant of any questions or doubts an atheist would have brought up. Even if they knew nothing at the time, they should have heard the arguments by now. I regard that pose of an atheist convinced by evidence as a fraud, as I said.

Your twisted logic on science and truth is invalid. Any scientist knows that science is a valid way to truth (reliable or preferable models of reality) as if they didn't accept that or pretend they did, they could not do their work. Whether they believe supernatural claims as well proves nothing about whether they are true.

There was a lot that Darwin didn't know. He didn't know about DNA, he didn't know about radiometric dating. He didn't know of the many transitional forms that now validate evolution, even if speciation is often ill - defined. Nature does not conform to the neat labels and boxes that humans use to identify various things, but that doesn't mean the different things are indistinguishable.

I have never heard of light coming from empty space. It has an origin; stars in fact. I have to laugh however if you want to wave that problem away as a metaphor of divine this or that. If you want to agree that Genesis is not literally true, I will take that as the start of your realisation that it is wrong. If you insist it happened as it says, then you are doing science - denial.

Which you can do, but, if so, never appeal to the science for evidence to support your claims.

[Capbook]

I emphasize toddlers cause they are the ones that needs guidance. Infant / newborn - Just born Baby - Hasn't been alive for long Toddler - 1-2-3 yrs Child - 3-12 years old Teen - 13-19 years old Adult - 20-60 years old.
You mentioned, "get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not". At least now you accept that teach/guidance indeed needed to a growing toddler. In contrast to atheist stand on unguided evolution. Creator God informed/guided His creations what are foods to them, so the theist parents likewise.

This is what you've said, "The evolutionary process is mindless , and experimental, which is why we had extinctions. Yet instincts are there which is why a kid knows to put food in its mouth at all. But in mammals there is an educating process." Root word educate defined as provide or pay for instruction for. So there's another that give instruction/guidance. Again in contrast to atheism unguided evolution.

So which is more preferable belief? unproven Abiogenesis or the proven Jesus.
"Tacitus was a historian and politician of ancient Rome. He wrote extensively about many subjects. The writings of Tacitus on Jesus also exist. Many scholars point to the writings as proof Jesus existed". Atheist are just always in denial about it.

Atheist Alan Sandage then believe that there is sense of purpose of life, that atheism does not have.
And hope that atheism does not know.

Even when small percentage of scientists are theist, it proves that evolution is not a 100% acceptable science.
God fearing population is 5.6B while non-religious, agnostics, atheism combined 1B something.

It seems that understanding the Bible leads away from non-followers of God to believers of God. Sandage included.

So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were non believers of God, that their rationality
comes from irrationality that minds comes from mindless matter.

Atheist John Gray says, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth".

If you will permit, I'll just take the response as the previous post was getting long.
Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god.

So why should we accept an analogy that there is a big invisible parent or mentor telling us what is the thing to do, when there is no decent shred of evidence for it, it isn't necessary as we learn by experience, and - most damning - we disagree about things all the time?


You confuse unguided evolution with conscious teaching. Conditions dictate what survives (and passes on that experience in DNA carried instinct) and formalised teaching, especially as we can see critters being taught by their elders and learning by experience. That social conventions are more complex that pack or tribe behaviour does not make it something different that has to come from a god, especially since - as I said - we come to different conclusions about the same basics. Different human thinking about common basic evolved instincts.

Again what you believe is irrelevant. What support can you make for what you believe?

I'll take Abiogenesis over the Jesus because evolution is as proven as any Reasonable person could require and the unproven abiogenesis has indirect support and a mechanism and method.

There is nothing 'proven' about Jesus but contradictory claims in an old book full of errors and a religion that spread like dozens of others.

Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that is true. It is the transformation of this failed messiah into a sort of god - figure and religion that I do not accept. The contradictions in the resurrection convince me totally that it is an invented claim without reality.

Atheists do not sell false hope based on a fear of dying so far as i can see, We sell reason and evidence, and I can tell you and Prof. Sanwidge that an atheist who understands and accepts reality and the finite life, finds human values more rewarding that the false ones sold by religions. Sometime, we might talk about 'The atheist afterlife' IF, if there is one, we all get it (as a natural thing) and no one religion is selling entry tickets.

Understanding of the Bible equally raises doubts, I can quote for instance Rachel Slick (daughter of Matt Slick, q.v) who, when she tried to argue the Bible to atheists, became atheist. This happens often when Believers can no longer lie to themselves. Which also often happens. I have seen believers deny what the Bible actually says, rather than have any doubt and question.

The Pew study showed that half scientists are atheist. Of those many are theist but not religious. And again others may be religious but accept evolution.

Prof. Tyson gave a talk where he claimed 15% of scientists were Theists. 40% PEW said I recall. 15% Tyson says. Either way, this does not make a case that scientists generally are theists who reject evolution. And evolution (though a ditch to die in for Christian fundamentalism, it seems) is not even relevant as if it was true, one can still be a god -believer and if false, it does not mean that God is the default answer.

I am more than happy to drop the argument you started of trying to claim science for their side, and even the argument from gaps for a god (consciousness, life and cosmic origins) does not get you to a particular religion. However, I still maintain that evolution -theory and the evidence we have supports a natural.materialist hypothesis for the way things work, than a god, name your own.

What John Gray said (supposing it is correct in context) is wrong. He is right that evolution does not lead to truth; it leads to survival, hopefully. It is science that has the track record of discovering truth and religions do not.

Yes I had a quick look. I suspect it is easy to quote this political philosopher out of context, and his views are argued about anyway. It is all about what humans do, and think and that is always arguable. It has nothing useful to say about the reality of evolution - theory.

You've said, "Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god. God guided/teaches His creations of what they are to eat. Unlike atheists stand on unguided evolution. Human's consciousness and freewill though makes man violates God's guidance, its a choice. In contrast to atheism's' view, whom never knew when does human consciousness arise.

Rational Intelligibility of the universe for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence. Throw a pail of marbles in your floor and see their unguided directions, could the law of gravity create a design? Or Hawking's freak accident makes the universe what it is today?

Rational mind is behind to all teachings and guidance, thus how mindless, unguided evolution results to intelligent humans? Not so believable, compare to God who created man into His image. Conscious from the beginning of creation while in atheism, consciousness still a mystery when that arise.

Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
While you say, "Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that
is true". As you accepted Jesus' existence, I may presume that Jesus may have teachings during His lifetime.

Of course atheism won't sell what is the purpose of life and hope. I believe you don't also know what is the meaning of life?

Lee Strobel states he was an atheist author when he began investigating the biblical claims about Jesus Christ after his wife's conversion. Prompted by the results of his investigation, he became a Christian at the age of 29.
We believe our God is all knowing (omniscient) who knows who are His.

Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science.

Maybe because of the loopholes of scientists lack of evidence of evolution, it might leads to the purpose, meaning of life that may lead someone to the hope God offered to those who believe in Him.

You says, "It is science that has the track record of discovering truth". And will be the only source of truth? Which is not a scientific idea.

We do have an explanation of how consciousness arises. Through evolution. It is seen even in animals, and mans' behaviour resembles theirs. You may blame mans' disobedience for doing what we call wrong (falling short of our own ideals) but if animals are the same, that is how God made them - or evolution. Evolution is not moral, but it is real. I would rather try to deal with the hand nature dealt us (as we did with natural limitations) than to ascribe it all to a 'Perfect' god and then try to blame why it isn't perfect on man.

Rational intelligibility or Order; essentially ID. Evolution (chemical evolution) explains this just as biological evolution explains complex working of bioforms. What works, works; what doesn't, goes extinct. What doesn't work with matter doesn't survive. Paley's watchmaker argument also mistakes natural working complexity for design. It isn't.
Again, evolution does explain how life, consciousness and reason arose. There is no need to use a god (name your own) as an easy dismissal of the question. I have never heard that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis. He may have disproved spontaneous creation, which is no more abiogenesis theory than dogs from cats is evolution - theory. Please explain how, if I am wrong.

General discussion now, I see it often happens - 'well what about this next atheist - stumper, then?' Ok. There is No really unquestionable support for a historical Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus or anywhere else. Not even in Paul, 100%. Yet i go with the more credible theory that Paul knew the disciples who knew Jesus, and an invented story would never have had him crucified, unless he was. And thus I credit Tacitus, even if he was only reciting what the Christians claimed, not what he knew.

But I am convinced that Jesus was nothing like the Jesus of the gospels, but was a failed messiah, not a resurrected god. I can see this turning into a discussion of its' own. But the Gabriel stone, IF the reading of a three day resurrection for Simon the rebel while Jesus was still learning his letters is correct, underpins the terminal contradictions of the resurrection - story as an invented claim. Slam. Dunk.

Lee Strobel is a fraud. His 'investigation' as I read it consisted only of apologetics of Bible apologists and not a single doubt and question that any Bible critic would have had. I have them, I shall post them, if we get onto debating the gospel Jesus.

"Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science." My Dude, that was a mere verbal trick. Evolution is 100% science. It just proves that a percentage of scientists can compartmentalise reason and Faith in their heads. The name escapes me, but there is a geology scientist who is a creationist. When he writes geology papers, he uses geological data; when he talks creationism, he uses creationist figures.

Loopholes in evolution (there are far more in the Christian god -claim, I assure you) do not debunk it. The Cetan sequence alone is slam dunk proof of speciation (land critter to whale) in a pretty continuous and undeniable evolutionary progression. Prove speciation once, and you prove it for all. Your effort to use the existing unknowns to pretend that evolution -theory is not adequately supported in a way that Theism can only dream of, and by a hoped - for dismissal, put back placeholder god (name your own, as I said before) is doomed to logical failure, never mind denial by the Faithful.

To repeat, science has the track record of discovering truth, or fact or the best models of reality that explain the data. Religious claims have been ever more debunked, and relies more and more on blinkered denial, including of what the Bible actually says. As one notorious example here had it, that the sun was made after not only the earth, but daylight (Genesis). If Darwin had blundered like that, his book would be in the trash.

My question was when does human consciousness arise? Not how.

What I mean is the Rational Intelligibility of the universe, cause for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence.

Pasteur’s set of experiments irrefutably disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and earned him the prestigious Alhumbert Prize from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862. In a subsequent lecture in 1864, Pasteur articulated “Omne vivum ex vivo” (“Life only comes from life”).https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... Generation

Adduced means served as evidence of certain facts about Jesus, "Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah". (Wikipedia)

He is the Jesus of the four Gospels, it is significant that most scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a known tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The burial in a known tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is considered historical because the Gospels describe Joseph as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus. And the first response by the Jewish leaders clearly admits to Jesus’ body missing from the known tomb.

Lee Strobel's written reply to: How an Atheist Fabricated a Phony Story About Me
"This self-published atheist and “religion critic” doesn’t even try to challenge the story of my conversion. The truth is absolutely as I have always reported it: I was an atheist and Yale-educated legal editor of the Chicago Tribune when my wife’s conversion to Christianity prompted me to investigate the faith for nearly two years. Ultimately, I decided the evidence was too strong to ignore, and I put my trust in Christ on November 8, 1981. Six years later, I left daily journalism to become a pastor".

The mere fact that there are scientists who doesn't believe that science is the only source of truth.
Evolution theory were from those scientists whom replaces God's truth to their only source of truth, that is not a scientific idea. Therefore it is not 100% science.

Charles Darwin may have successfully convinced the world about evolution and natural selection, but did not answer the question posed by his most famous book, ‘On the Origin of Species …’. Since the 1940s, Ernst Mayr has been one of the people who argued for this point of view, claiming that Darwin was not able to answer the question of speciation because he failed to define species properly.
But the Word of God can name the genealogy of Jesus unlike evolution I believe there are still gaps.

If modern scientific theory insists on the possibility of light coming out of empty space (in other words, without light bearing objects), it is inconsistent to criticize the biblical idea that light existed on the first day of creation without sun, moon, or stars . . . The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible. (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).

Your question about when human consciousness arises shows that you do not understand gradual evolution. Reaction gives rise to instinct, instinct gives rise to responding to input. Responses lead to animal co -operation (packs and families) Primate interaction is the basis of human thinking, and place in the tribe to consciousness as it is called. That is the mechanism that makes 'when' meaningless.

Rational intelligibility sounds to me like ID or intelligent creation. While this is a gap for a god, it is more questions about unknowns than proof of a god. Many of the ID arguments are answered or wrong.

Good for Pasteur in debunking spontaneous creation. What he did not demonstrate was Goddunnit Creation. Life comes from non - life all the time. A plant or critter is chemical atoms until it is assembled as a seed or egg, and the activation of that seed or egg is life from non - life. Abiogernesis is the theory of how that process began. It has a mechanism but not proof. Creation has a simplistic claim in an old book full of errors.

Didn't I already explain about Tacitus and Josephus? The Flavian Testament is understood to be partly forgery and I think there is evidence of total forgery. Tacitus reports the Christian claim, which I think is actually true. Not what he knew himself.

There is a real Jesus, but not the Jesus of the gospels. The tomb (there are two claimed tombs at least) is not the tomb of Arimathea as they are in an area already built up in Jesus' time and would be given a new wall in Herod Agrippa's time. All tombs had been emptied and moved to the Mount of Olives. If there is an actual Arimathea tomb, it is up there. And of course, nobody knows which. As to the Jewish leaders, Matthew says that the Jews said that the disciples took the body. If the story is at all true, that is quite likely.

Whatever Lee Strobel says about his conversion, in reading his reasons, he gave only the claims of believers, not a single atheist doubt or question. It is a classic apologetic in claiming to have been an atheist convinced by the evidence, but seemingly ignorant of any questions or doubts an atheist would have brought up. Even if they knew nothing at the time, they should have heard the arguments by now. I regard that pose of an atheist convinced by evidence as a fraud, as I said.

Your twisted logic on science and truth is invalid. Any scientist knows that science is a valid way to truth (reliable or preferable models of reality) as if they didn't accept that or pretend they did, they could not do their work. Whether they believe supernatural claims as well proves nothing about whether they are true.

There was a lot that Darwin didn't know. He didn't know about DNA, he didn't know about radiometric dating. He didn't know of the many transitional forms that now validate evolution, even if speciation is often ill - defined. Nature does not conform to the neat labels and boxes that humans use to identify various things, but that doesn't mean the different things are indistinguishable.

I have never heard of light coming from empty space. It has an origin; stars in fact. I have to laugh however if you want to wave that problem away as a metaphor of divine this or that. If you want to agree that Genesis is not literally true, I will take that as the start of your realisation that it is wrong. If you insist it happened as it says, then you are doing science - denial.

Which you can do, but, if so, never appeal to the science for evidence to support your claims.

And now my question is, from where does human consciousness arise?

God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. (Wikipedia)

At least you hear about Pasteur now.

It is Wikipedia that Tacitus and Josephus that from these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah".
Wikipedia I believe was accepted as a source of research for dissertations.

That's the Jesus of the Gospels, I believe there's no other Jesus that Tacitus and Josephus are referring as called the Messiah.

I'm afraid that you might counted by Lee Strobel as one of the others whom he addressed his reply to: How an atheist fabricated a phony story about me. As you say a fraud.

You says, "Any scientist knows that science is a valid way to truth". Did you count theist scientist? Replacing God's truth by some scientist's truth.

As we believe in an Omniscient God, He can distinguish everything Darwin fails to know.

I'm going to re emphasize Donald Chittick staements," The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible". (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).
Science cannot say that miracles do not occur, can say highly highly improbable but nobody is claiming that this thing occurred by natural process. "Let there be light".

We believe in an omnipotent God. That science cannot grasp. How can scientist put on the lab and physically experiment on "thought or idea".

[TRANSPONDER]

I emphasize toddlers cause they are the ones that needs guidance. Infant / newborn - Just born Baby - Hasn't been alive for long Toddler - 1-2-3 yrs Child - 3-12 years old Teen - 13-19 years old Adult - 20-60 years old.
You mentioned, "get taught what to stick in their mouths and what not". At least now you accept that teach/guidance indeed needed to a growing toddler. In contrast to atheist stand on unguided evolution. Creator God informed/guided His creations what are foods to them, so the theist parents likewise.

This is what you've said, "The evolutionary process is mindless , and experimental, which is why we had extinctions. Yet instincts are there which is why a kid knows to put food in its mouth at all. But in mammals there is an educating process." Root word educate defined as provide or pay for instruction for. So there's another that give instruction/guidance. Again in contrast to atheism unguided evolution.

So which is more preferable belief? unproven Abiogenesis or the proven Jesus.
"Tacitus was a historian and politician of ancient Rome. He wrote extensively about many subjects. The writings of Tacitus on Jesus also exist. Many scholars point to the writings as proof Jesus existed". Atheist are just always in denial about it.

Atheist Alan Sandage then believe that there is sense of purpose of life, that atheism does not have.
And hope that atheism does not know.

Even when small percentage of scientists are theist, it proves that evolution is not a 100% acceptable science.
God fearing population is 5.6B while non-religious, agnostics, atheism combined 1B something.

It seems that understanding the Bible leads away from non-followers of God to believers of God. Sandage included.

So can we stop this ploy of digging up long dead scientists who were non believers of God, that their rationality
comes from irrationality that minds comes from mindless matter.

Atheist John Gray says, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth- and to be free. But if Darwin's theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth".

If you will permit, I'll just take the response as the previous post was getting long.
Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god.

So why should we accept an analogy that there is a big invisible parent or mentor telling us what is the thing to do, when there is no decent shred of evidence for it, it isn't necessary as we learn by experience, and - most damning - we disagree about things all the time?


You confuse unguided evolution with conscious teaching. Conditions dictate what survives (and passes on that experience in DNA carried instinct) and formalised teaching, especially as we can see critters being taught by their elders and learning by experience. That social conventions are more complex that pack or tribe behaviour does not make it something different that has to come from a god, especially since - as I said - we come to different conclusions about the same basics. Different human thinking about common basic evolved instincts.

Again what you believe is irrelevant. What support can you make for what you believe?

I'll take Abiogenesis over the Jesus because evolution is as proven as any Reasonable person could require and the unproven abiogenesis has indirect support and a mechanism and method.

There is nothing 'proven' about Jesus but contradictory claims in an old book full of errors and a religion that spread like dozens of others.

Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that is true. It is the transformation of this failed messiah into a sort of god - figure and religion that I do not accept. The contradictions in the resurrection convince me totally that it is an invented claim without reality.

Atheists do not sell false hope based on a fear of dying so far as i can see, We sell reason and evidence, and I can tell you and Prof. Sanwidge that an atheist who understands and accepts reality and the finite life, finds human values more rewarding that the false ones sold by religions. Sometime, we might talk about 'The atheist afterlife' IF, if there is one, we all get it (as a natural thing) and no one religion is selling entry tickets.

Understanding of the Bible equally raises doubts, I can quote for instance Rachel Slick (daughter of Matt Slick, q.v) who, when she tried to argue the Bible to atheists, became atheist. This happens often when Believers can no longer lie to themselves. Which also often happens. I have seen believers deny what the Bible actually says, rather than have any doubt and question.

The Pew study showed that half scientists are atheist. Of those many are theist but not religious. And again others may be religious but accept evolution.

Prof. Tyson gave a talk where he claimed 15% of scientists were Theists. 40% PEW said I recall. 15% Tyson says. Either way, this does not make a case that scientists generally are theists who reject evolution. And evolution (though a ditch to die in for Christian fundamentalism, it seems) is not even relevant as if it was true, one can still be a god -believer and if false, it does not mean that God is the default answer.

I am more than happy to drop the argument you started of trying to claim science for their side, and even the argument from gaps for a god (consciousness, life and cosmic origins) does not get you to a particular religion. However, I still maintain that evolution -theory and the evidence we have supports a natural.materialist hypothesis for the way things work, than a god, name your own.

What John Gray said (supposing it is correct in context) is wrong. He is right that evolution does not lead to truth; it leads to survival, hopefully. It is science that has the track record of discovering truth and religions do not.

Yes I had a quick look. I suspect it is easy to quote this political philosopher out of context, and his views are argued about anyway. It is all about what humans do, and think and that is always arguable. It has nothing useful to say about the reality of evolution - theory.

You've said, "Yes, teaching is needed for everyone, toddlers or adults. We never stop learning. From each other, not from a god. God guided/teaches His creations of what they are to eat. Unlike atheists stand on unguided evolution. Human's consciousness and freewill though makes man violates God's guidance, its a choice. In contrast to atheism's' view, whom never knew when does human consciousness arise.

Rational Intelligibility of the universe for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence. Throw a pail of marbles in your floor and see their unguided directions, could the law of gravity create a design? Or Hawking's freak accident makes the universe what it is today?

Rational mind is behind to all teachings and guidance, thus how mindless, unguided evolution results to intelligent humans? Not so believable, compare to God who created man into His image. Conscious from the beginning of creation while in atheism, consciousness still a mystery when that arise.

Louis Pasteur disproved the abiogenesis theory experimentally.
While you say, "Tacitus is perhaps the best evidence for a historic Jesus executed by Pilate. I have no doubt that
is true". As you accepted Jesus' existence, I may presume that Jesus may have teachings during His lifetime.

Of course atheism won't sell what is the purpose of life and hope. I believe you don't also know what is the meaning of life?

Lee Strobel states he was an atheist author when he began investigating the biblical claims about Jesus Christ after his wife's conversion. Prompted by the results of his investigation, he became a Christian at the age of 29.
We believe our God is all knowing (omniscient) who knows who are His.

Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science.

Maybe because of the loopholes of scientists lack of evidence of evolution, it might leads to the purpose, meaning of life that may lead someone to the hope God offered to those who believe in Him.

You says, "It is science that has the track record of discovering truth". And will be the only source of truth? Which is not a scientific idea.

We do have an explanation of how consciousness arises. Through evolution. It is seen even in animals, and mans' behaviour resembles theirs. You may blame mans' disobedience for doing what we call wrong (falling short of our own ideals) but if animals are the same, that is how God made them - or evolution. Evolution is not moral, but it is real. I would rather try to deal with the hand nature dealt us (as we did with natural limitations) than to ascribe it all to a 'Perfect' god and then try to blame why it isn't perfect on man.

Rational intelligibility or Order; essentially ID. Evolution (chemical evolution) explains this just as biological evolution explains complex working of bioforms. What works, works; what doesn't, goes extinct. What doesn't work with matter doesn't survive. Paley's watchmaker argument also mistakes natural working complexity for design. It isn't.
Again, evolution does explain how life, consciousness and reason arose. There is no need to use a god (name your own) as an easy dismissal of the question. I have never heard that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis. He may have disproved spontaneous creation, which is no more abiogenesis theory than dogs from cats is evolution - theory. Please explain how, if I am wrong.

General discussion now, I see it often happens - 'well what about this next atheist - stumper, then?' Ok. There is No really unquestionable support for a historical Jesus in Tacitus, Josephus or anywhere else. Not even in Paul, 100%. Yet i go with the more credible theory that Paul knew the disciples who knew Jesus, and an invented story would never have had him crucified, unless he was. And thus I credit Tacitus, even if he was only reciting what the Christians claimed, not what he knew.

But I am convinced that Jesus was nothing like the Jesus of the gospels, but was a failed messiah, not a resurrected god. I can see this turning into a discussion of its' own. But the Gabriel stone, IF the reading of a three day resurrection for Simon the rebel while Jesus was still learning his letters is correct, underpins the terminal contradictions of the resurrection - story as an invented claim. Slam. Dunk.

Lee Strobel is a fraud. His 'investigation' as I read it consisted only of apologetics of Bible apologists and not a single doubt and question that any Bible critic would have had. I have them, I shall post them, if we get onto debating the gospel Jesus.

"Yes, there are theist scientist even in small percentage, it just proves that evolution is not 100% science." My Dude, that was a mere verbal trick. Evolution is 100% science. It just proves that a percentage of scientists can compartmentalise reason and Faith in their heads. The name escapes me, but there is a geology scientist who is a creationist. When he writes geology papers, he uses geological data; when he talks creationism, he uses creationist figures.

Loopholes in evolution (there are far more in the Christian god -claim, I assure you) do not debunk it. The Cetan sequence alone is slam dunk proof of speciation (land critter to whale) in a pretty continuous and undeniable evolutionary progression. Prove speciation once, and you prove it for all. Your effort to use the existing unknowns to pretend that evolution -theory is not adequately supported in a way that Theism can only dream of, and by a hoped - for dismissal, put back placeholder god (name your own, as I said before) is doomed to logical failure, never mind denial by the Faithful.

To repeat, science has the track record of discovering truth, or fact or the best models of reality that explain the data. Religious claims have been ever more debunked, and relies more and more on blinkered denial, including of what the Bible actually says. As one notorious example here had it, that the sun was made after not only the earth, but daylight (Genesis). If Darwin had blundered like that, his book would be in the trash.

My question was when does human consciousness arise? Not how.

What I mean is the Rational Intelligibility of the universe, cause for me is a proof or evidence of God's existence.

Pasteur’s set of experiments irrefutably disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and earned him the prestigious Alhumbert Prize from the Paris Academy of Sciences in 1862. In a subsequent lecture in 1864, Pasteur articulated “Omne vivum ex vivo” (“Life only comes from life”).https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ ... Generation

Adduced means served as evidence of certain facts about Jesus, "Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah". (Wikipedia)

He is the Jesus of the four Gospels, it is significant that most scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a known tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The burial in a known tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is considered historical because the Gospels describe Joseph as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus. And the first response by the Jewish leaders clearly admits to Jesus’ body missing from the known tomb.

Lee Strobel's written reply to: How an Atheist Fabricated a Phony Story About Me
"This self-published atheist and “religion critic” doesn’t even try to challenge the story of my conversion. The truth is absolutely as I have always reported it: I was an atheist and Yale-educated legal editor of the Chicago Tribune when my wife’s conversion to Christianity prompted me to investigate the faith for nearly two years. Ultimately, I decided the evidence was too strong to ignore, and I put my trust in Christ on November 8, 1981. Six years later, I left daily journalism to become a pastor".

The mere fact that there are scientists who doesn't believe that science is the only source of truth.
Evolution theory were from those scientists whom replaces God's truth to their only source of truth, that is not a scientific idea. Therefore it is not 100% science.

Charles Darwin may have successfully convinced the world about evolution and natural selection, but did not answer the question posed by his most famous book, ‘On the Origin of Species …’. Since the 1940s, Ernst Mayr has been one of the people who argued for this point of view, claiming that Darwin was not able to answer the question of speciation because he failed to define species properly.
But the Word of God can name the genealogy of Jesus unlike evolution I believe there are still gaps.

If modern scientific theory insists on the possibility of light coming out of empty space (in other words, without light bearing objects), it is inconsistent to criticize the biblical idea that light existed on the first day of creation without sun, moon, or stars . . . The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible. (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).

Your question about when human consciousness arises shows that you do not understand gradual evolution. Reaction gives rise to instinct, instinct gives rise to responding to input. Responses lead to animal co -operation (packs and families) Primate interaction is the basis of human thinking, and place in the tribe to consciousness as it is called. That is the mechanism that makes 'when' meaningless.

Rational intelligibility sounds to me like ID or intelligent creation. While this is a gap for a god, it is more questions about unknowns than proof of a god. Many of the ID arguments are answered or wrong.

Good for Pasteur in debunking spontaneous creation. What he did not demonstrate was Goddunnit Creation. Life comes from non - life all the time. A plant or critter is chemical atoms until it is assembled as a seed or egg, and the activation of that seed or egg is life from non - life. Abiogernesis is the theory of how that process began. It has a mechanism but not proof. Creation has a simplistic claim in an old book full of errors.

Didn't I already explain about Tacitus and Josephus? The Flavian Testament is understood to be partly forgery and I think there is evidence of total forgery. Tacitus reports the Christian claim, which I think is actually true. Not what he knew himself.

There is a real Jesus, but not the Jesus of the gospels. The tomb (there are two claimed tombs at least) is not the tomb of Arimathea as they are in an area already built up in Jesus' time and would be given a new wall in Herod Agrippa's time. All tombs had been emptied and moved to the Mount of Olives. If there is an actual Arimathea tomb, it is up there. And of course, nobody knows which. As to the Jewish leaders, Matthew says that the Jews said that the disciples took the body. If the story is at all true, that is quite likely.

Whatever Lee Strobel says about his conversion, in reading his reasons, he gave only the claims of believers, not a single atheist doubt or question. It is a classic apologetic in claiming to have been an atheist convinced by the evidence, but seemingly ignorant of any questions or doubts an atheist would have brought up. Even if they knew nothing at the time, they should have heard the arguments by now. I regard that pose of an atheist convinced by evidence as a fraud, as I said.

Your twisted logic on science and truth is invalid. Any scientist knows that science is a valid way to truth (reliable or preferable models of reality) as if they didn't accept that or pretend they did, they could not do their work. Whether they believe supernatural claims as well proves nothing about whether they are true.

There was a lot that Darwin didn't know. He didn't know about DNA, he didn't know about radiometric dating. He didn't know of the many transitional forms that now validate evolution, even if speciation is often ill - defined. Nature does not conform to the neat labels and boxes that humans use to identify various things, but that doesn't mean the different things are indistinguishable.

I have never heard of light coming from empty space. It has an origin; stars in fact. I have to laugh however if you want to wave that problem away as a metaphor of divine this or that. If you want to agree that Genesis is not literally true, I will take that as the start of your realisation that it is wrong. If you insist it happened as it says, then you are doing science - denial.

Which you can do, but, if so, never appeal to the science for evidence to support your claims.

And now my question is, from where does human consciousness arise?

God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. (Wikipedia)

At least you hear about Pasteur now.

It is Wikipedia that Tacitus and Josephus that from these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah".
Wikipedia I believe was accepted as a source of research for dissertations.

That's the Jesus of the Gospels, I believe there's no other Jesus that Tacitus and Josephus are referring as called the Messiah.

I'm afraid that you might counted by Lee Strobel as one of the others whom he addressed his reply to: How an atheist fabricated a phony story about me. As you say a fraud.

You says, "Any scientist knows that science is a valid way to truth". Did you count theist scientist? Replacing God's truth by some scientist's truth.

As we believe in an Omniscient God, He can distinguish everything Darwin fails to know.

I'm going to re emphasize Donald Chittick staements," The fact that Genesis talks about light existing before the appearance of the sun, moon, and stars seem rather to be evidence of divine authorship of the Bible". (Donald Chittick, The Controversy, Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1984, p. 151).
Science cannot say that miracles do not occur, can say highly highly improbable but nobody is claiming that this thing occurred by natural process. "Let there be light".

We believe in an omnipotent God. That science cannot grasp. How can scientist put on the lab and physically experiment on "thought or idea".

Didn't I explain? Human consciousness evolved from reaction - instinct - awareness and problem solving, all observable in animals. Your problem is in mistaking a remarkable advance in it for something god - given.

I know what a god of the gaps argument is. What you failed to see iis that they were never anything more than appeals to Unknowns and not evidence for a god, and now are less than unknowns as they have at least natural explanations.

I know about Pasteur. Do you now know that Pasteur is no evidence for creationism?

Apart from Wiki being a useful if questionable source of information, Josephus tells us nothing undeniable about Jesus. Tacitus related hearay. I do accept a real Jesus but nothing like gospel Jesus. It is a cheat to try to extrapolate support for Christian Jesus from a credible acceptance of the existence of Jewish Jesus. If he acted like a candidate messiah (he was not the only one) his mission ended in death, like all the others.

I am telling what I saw from Strobel's own story. Nor fake news. I am telling you that he uses only Bible - literalist propaganda as his 'case'. He nowhere even mentions the objections, let alone counters them. I'm just saying I have seen this fraud before - supposed converted atheists who seem to have forgotten all the arguments they used as atheists.

Of course he might have been a totally ignorant atheist who never heard the debate. In that case he doesn't know what the argument is. But by now he must know, so he is dismissing it without honest discussion. Either way, he's a fraud.


Ok. You can do total science denial. There is no known light that could exist before the sun, stars and planets, but after the earth was made and there was water, Genesis says. You not only appeal to a miracle without any mechanism, but you are denying everything that science says about stars (including sun) before there was an earth to light. If so, don't appeal to science for your evidence.

What can't be disected in a lab can be discussed with logical reasoning. Appeal to a god (never mind which one) fails logically unless you have a logical and evidence -based argument to support it.

So far everything you have presented is misunderstanding (at best) of science, denial of science and appeal to faith - claims.

Over to you