136 replies to this topic

[Ron]

I find this interesting. What seems more of a fantasy?
Small changes over time producing big changes.
That someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universe.

Well, evolution (macro) seems far more fantastic (fantasy-like) then almost anything (except maybe “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera…) since there is absolutely no evidence for it. So what is even more interesting is that an atheist (in general) would put so much of their faith in something that cannot be proven, and yet put all their dogmatic and zealous efforts into defending it.

As far as “someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universe” you say? Even that doesn’t compare the wild imagination that put together “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera… Let’s try this:

That “nothing” suddenly created every complex thing on the universe.

That “non-life” suddenly created all the complex life on Earth.

That “non-intelligence” created all the intelligence in the human being.

Now those are miracles.

[zendra]

zendra you stated that evolution is small changes over time. punctuated equillibrum is more rapid that . rapid changes over a millenia vs the normal slowness.

and last i heard pe is acceptable to some evolutionists. though it kinda throws out darwinian evolution.

While puntuated evolution is more rapid than gradualism is does still work in the same way. The main difference is that the selection pressure is much stronger and therefore less time is taken for the advantagous gene to spread across the gene pool.

Well, evolution (macro) seems far more fantastic (fantasy-like) then almost anything (except maybe “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera…) since there is absolutely no evidence for it

I still dont see your difference between macro and micro. How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?
I understand the seemingly silly something from nothing point though as far as i understand the big bang theory it actually started with matter simply compressed together.

As far as “someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universe” you say? Even that doesn’t compare the wild imagination that put together “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera… Let’s try this:

In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.

That “nothing” suddenly created every complex thing on the universe.

That “non-life” suddenly created all the complex life on Earth.

That “non-intelligence” created all the intelligence in the human being.

Now those are miracles.

Just to clarify, do you mean nothing suddenly created everything complex or over time?

Non life I touched on above.

What do you class as intelligence? Also I feel created is the wrong word, evolution states that intelligence gradually evolved.

[jason]

While puntuated evolution is more rapid than gradualism is does still work in the same way. The main difference is that the selection pressure is much stronger and therefore less time is taken for the advantagous gene to spread across the gene pool.
I still dont see your difference between macro and micro. How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?
I understand the seemingly silly something from nothing point though as far as i understand the big bang theory it actually started with matter simply compressed together.
In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.
Just to clarify, do you mean nothing suddenly created everything complex or over time?

Non life I touched on above.

What do you class as intelligence? Also I feel created is the wrong word, evolution states that intelligence gradually evolved.

what accounts for the sudden pressure to cause pe? the odds of that suddenly increasing to account for life complexity and fully formed with the genes being selected is staggering. instead of millions its now thousands. man them species must been busy. jumping genes?

uh intellegence had to start somewhere. languages even the oldest arent so simple.look at ancient hebrew and greek. hebrew and chaldean i believe are father son languages.

[Ron]

Well, evolution (macro) seems far more fantastic (fantasy-like) then almost anything (except maybe “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera…) since there is absolutely no evidence for it

I still dont see your difference between macro and micro.

I really don’t think you are having a problem with the definitions of macro and micro, nor the differences between the two… So, below are generally accepted and succinct definitions of the two:

Microevolution (noun)
Limited change - “minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time”

Macroevolution (noun)
Theorized large scale evolution - evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups creating NEW species.

Now, if you wish, you can attempt to equivocate between the two; or attempt a conversion by definition. But I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it.

How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?
I understand the seemingly silly something from nothing point though as far as i understand the big bang theory it actually started with matter simply compressed together.

Well, since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution; and since all the pseudo-evidence is presupposed, assumed and/or ‘a priori’, I would have to say that actual and factual empirical evidence would be a start.

I know, it is silly, isn’t it… Which begs the question from the rest of your statement: Since we know from all the empirical science, logic and rationale extant that; Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being i.e. “from nothing, nothing comes” (Non-B > B ), every contingent being/phenomena is dependent upon a necessary being/phenomena (Non-B > B ), and every contingent being Is caused by a necessary being (Bn → Bc ); FROM WHERE did the “matter simply compressed together” come?

And to put more of a chink in your statement; how can “matter” be “simply compressed together”? Have you ever seen or experienced (empirically) “matter simply compressed together”? Further, how is any of that simple?

What, then, seems more of a fantasy?

As far as “someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universe” you say? Even that doesn’t compare the wild imagination that put together “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera… Let’s try this:

In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.

Again, how is any of that “simple”? Further, can you provide actual empirical evidence for “life simply being chemical reactions”, and then provide empirically (factual evidence for) those “simple chemicals” causing life from non-life? Or are you “simply” thinking about it?

Clarification of this would be nice. But, keep in mind; all you’ve provided thus far is “belief” and “faith” statements. And that is seemingly odd for a materialistic atheist.

What, then, seems more of a fantasy?

That “nothing” suddenly created every complex thing on the universe.

That “non-life” suddenly created all the complex life on Earth.

That “non-intelligence” created all the intelligence in the human being.

Now those are miracles.

Just to clarify, do you mean nothing suddenly created everything complex or over time?

No, I mean “nothing” creating anything at all! Further, since science cannot provide for anything that is not complex, then complexity is automatically implied, and the “over time” axiom promulgated, is an assumption on your part.

Non life I touched on above.

Actually, no, you did not; you simply asked a question that begged more questions that you’ll have a hard time answering; “if you think about life simply being chemical reactions”…

What do you class as intelligence?

Intelligence (noun)

The ability to think and learn - The ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed.


Therefore, what you do classify as empirically evidence of intelligence coming from non-intelligence?

Also I feel created is the wrong word, evolution states that intelligence gradually evolved.

Which of the following follow from your statement above:

Feel (verb)

1. Intransitive verb to seem to yourself to be in a particular physical or emotional state.

2. Intransitive verb to cause a particular physical or emotional sensation.

3. Transitive verb to perceive something using the sense of touch.

4. Transitive verb to test or examine something by touching it.

From what do you base then, your assertion that the word “created” is the wrong word?


Keeping in mind…



Created (verb)

1. Transitive verb to bring something into existence.

2. Transitive verb to result in something or make something happen.


Further, evolution doesn’t “state anything'… Evolutionary scientists make claims. Can you back up your assertions with actual empirical facts?

So, once more... What, then, seems more of a fantasy?

[zendra]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]what accounts for the sudden pressure to cause pe[/QUOTE]

As far as I understand it, we dont say either Pe or gradualism. The strength of the selection pressure decides how fast the species will evolve. Darwin's finches for instance, if one had a slightly longer beak and managed to eat worms as well as seeds then we might expect gradualism to occur. But if there was a drought and seeds were much harder to obtain then there would be greater selection pressure on being able to eat worms.


[QUOTE]Well, since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution; and since all the pseudo-evidence is presupposed, assumed and/or ‘a priori’, I would have to say that actual and factual empirical evidence would be a start.

[/QUOTE]

What i mean is, if you were able to watch a species evolve over millions of years. How much would the species have to change before you class it as macro instead of micro.


[QUOTE]I know, it is silly, isn’t it… Which begs the question from the rest of your statement: Since we know from all the empirical science, logic and rationale extant that; Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being i.e. “from nothing, nothing comes” (Non-B > B ), every contingent being/phenomena is dependent upon a necessary being/phenomena (Non-B > B ), and every contingent being Is caused by a necessary being (Bn → Bc ); FROM WHERE did the “matter simply compressed together” come?

[/QUOTE]

But your god isnt subject to the same reasoning?

[QUOTE]And to put more of a chink in your statement; how can “matter” be “simply compressed together”? Have you ever seen or experienced (empirically) “matter simply compressed together”? Further, how is any of that simple?

[/QUOTE]

When you see a packet of balloons, are they not compressed together as opposed being filled with air?
Do you accept atomic theory? If so then you know that most of an atom is empty space with plenty of room for compression.


[QUOTE]Again, how is any of that “simple”? Further, can you provide actual empirical evidence for “life simply being chemical reactions”, and then provide empirically (factual evidence for) those “simple chemicals” causing life from non-life? Or are you “simply” thinking about it?[/QUOTE]

Inside my mouth are enzymes which help break down food for digestine.
In my dna nucleotides are bonding with each other while others are being broken apart by proteins.


[QUOTE]No, I mean “nothing” creating anything at all! Further, since science cannot provide for anything that is not complex, then complexity is automatically implied, and the “over time” axiom promulgated, is an assumption on your part.

[/QUOTE]

Well if i understand the big bang theory correctly then the matter was already there. There was something in the beginning.

Ill have to end here sorry, Ill answer the rest of your post later.

[Ron]

Well, since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution; and since all the pseudo-evidence is presupposed, assumed and/or ‘a priori’, I would have to say that actual and factual empirical evidence would be a start.

What i mean is, if you were able to watch a species evolve over millions of years. How much would the species have to change before you class it as macro instead of micro.

The point you seem to be missing here is that you are basing your entire worldview on a hypothesis of multiplied time plus prayer. A worldview of “what if’s” and unproven supposed outcomes. You do see that don’t you? Whenever you say something like “if you were able to”, then add the fictitious “millions of years”, that is the epitome of “Argumentum ad Futuris” and “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum” (basically the appeal to probability and belief). And you keep repeating the same mistake over and over.

I know, it is silly, isn’t it… Which begs the question from the rest of your statement: Since we know from all the empirical science, logic and rationale extant that; Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being i.e. “from nothing, nothing comes” (Non-B > B ), every contingent being/phenomena is dependent upon a necessary being/phenomena (Non-B > B ), and every contingent being Is caused by a necessary being (Bn → Bc ); FROM WHERE did the “matter simply compressed together” come?

But your god isnt subject to the same reasoning?

Nope, not at all! Or not in the way you are attempting to discern how logic works, because “Necessary Being exists” (Bn exists), further “Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being” (Bn > Bn ) and “Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being” (Bn → Bc ).

The logic works like this (or in this order):

(B is) = The Principle of Existence
(B is B ) = The Principle of Identity
(B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction
(Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle
(Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality
(Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency)
(Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality
(Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality
(Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality
(Bn exists) = The Principle of Existential Necessity
(Bc exists)= The Principle of Existential Contingency

And to put more of a chink in your statement; how can “matter” be “simply compressed together”? Have you ever seen or experienced (empirically) “matter simply compressed together”? Further, how is any of that simple?

When you see a packet of balloons, are they not compressed together as opposed being filled with air?
Do you accept atomic theory? If so then you know that most of an atom is empty space with plenty of room for compression.

That is a non sequitur for many-many reasons zendra.

First – We can inductively test and prove that a packet of balloons can be compressed.
Second – You cannot even test your hypothesis that all the material in the universe can be compressed into a package so small so as to fit that of the proposal of the Big Bang model.
Third – A package of balloons of a physical man made construct.
Fourth – The Big Bang model is ONLY of abstract, supernatural, metaphysical man made construct.
Fifth – Atomic theory is only partially empirically verified (and very dangerous at that), and is still greatly hypothetical at best.
Sixth – I would dearly love to see you attempt to empirically verify your “there is plenty of space around an atom to compress the universe” hypotheses. This should be very interesting.
Conclusion - What, then, seems more of a fantasy?

Again, how is any of that “simple”? Further, can you provide actual empirical evidence for “life simply being chemical reactions”, and then provide empirically (factual evidence for) those “simple chemicals” causing life from non-life? Or are you “simply” thinking about it?

Inside my mouth are enzymes which help break down food for digestine.
In my dna nucleotides are bonding with each other while others are being broken apart by proteins.

Do you not even realize how complex those enzymes AND your DNA are? If you did, you wouldn’t even attempt to correlate them with the word “simple”. You may want to look a little more “in depth” at the complexity of life before attempting to analogize in such a manner. Further, your analogy fails because enzymes inside your mouth, and DNA nucleotide bonding are nothing like life from non-life.

[Ron]

No, I mean “nothing” creating anything at all! Further, since science cannot provide for anything that is not complex, then complexity is automatically implied, and the “over time” axiom promulgated, is an assumption on your part.

Well if i understand the big bang theory correctly then the matter was already there. There was something in the beginning.

Nobody has ever seen a big bang, therefore absolutely “NO ONE” understands a big bang. To take it a step further, since nobody has ever seen a big bang, it follows that no one has ever tested, and therefore can verify empirically the big bang. At best, some evidences have been adduced to understand that the universe had a beginning. Other than that EVERYTHING ELSE is assumed and presupposed.

So, to draw the strings around your statement “Well if i understand the big bang theory correctly then the matter was already there”, and put it in a succinct and cogent package: since no one knows anything empirical other than there was a beginning, then you statements fails, because you don’t know what was there. Therefore you are merely making a “faith statement”.

And, your statement “There was something in the beginning” is a “faith statement” as well. And, although, for the most part, I agree with you on that; which brings us back to:

(B is) = The Principle of Existence
(B is B ) = The Principle of Identity
(B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction
(Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle
(Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality
(Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency)
(Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality
(Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality
(Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality
(Bn exists) = The Principle of Existential Necessity
(Bc exists)= The Principle of Existential Contingency

Ill have to end here sorry, Ill answer the rest of your post later.

That’s fine, there is no need to apologize Zendra… We all have plenty of other things to do.

[AFJ]

I still dont see your difference between macro and micro. How big does the change have to be before you would consider it to be macro?

Hi Zendra,
Have you studied DNA, since DNA would be the center and root of evolutionary biology? If macroevolution has occured then it should be possible to explain the following:

If you would explain to us how the DNA, or we'll even allow RNA world precursors--how they encoded the replication fork enzymes. Without replication fork enzymes there is no DNA replication, and without replication of DNA there is no life or evolution.



Of course the problem is that all these enzymes are encoded by the DNA. I hope you see the chicken or the egg problem here. You need both at the same time. This is just one macroevolutionary 'canyon,' and the only way you can jump it is to make up some wannabe 'science' story.

Please answer how the above enzymes were encoded without replicating DNA:

Helicase (splits the DNA--how did self replicating RNA produce a SELECTABLE helicase which splits DNA)
DNA primase
DNA ligase
DNA polymerase
Topoisomerase

[zendra]

The point you seem to be missing here is that you are basing your entire worldview on a hypothesis of multiplied time plus prayer. A worldview of “what if’s” and unproven supposed outcomes. You do see that don’t you? Whenever you say something like “if you were able to”, then add the fictitious “millions of years”

I realize I have been not that responsive in producing evidence( Ill get to that soon). Whats curious is that I thought you accepted microevolution/adaptation
"as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true"
"microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation” within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day"
Yet you now seem to be calling it "prayer" and “if you were able to”. Perhaps you could clarify.
And now to evidence, how about I list some main points that I was taught about and we can go through them one by one?
Homologous structures
Analogous structures
Embryology
Fossil record
Microevolution

Fifth – Atomic theory is only partially empirically verified (and very dangerous at that), and is still greatly hypothetical at best.
Sixth – I would dearly love to see you attempt to empirically verify your “there is plenty of space around an atom to compress the universe” hypotheses. This should be very interesting.

Well my point relies on you accepting atomic theory, what problems are you talking about? it is definitely more than a hypothesis. Also I never said that the whole universe would fit in the space of an atom. But if the current theory is correct then there would be space for the nucleus and electrons of atoms to squeeze closer.

Do you not even realize how complex those enzymes AND your DNA are? If you did, you wouldn’t even attempt to correlate them with the word “simple”.

I do realize the complexity of DNA, that is why I'm open to creation at a basic level.

You may want to look a little more “in depth” at the complexity of life before attempting to analogize in such a manner. Further, your analogy fails because enzymes inside your mouth, and DNA nucleotide bonding are nothing like life from non-life.

Those were examples i gave, not analogies. And when did i ever state that those enzymes were like what started life.

Of course the problem is that all these enzymes are encoded by the DNA. I hope you see the chicken or the egg problem here. You need both at the same time. This is just one macroevolutionary 'canyon,' and the only way you can jump it is to make up some wannabe 'science' story.

Please answer how the above enzymes were encoded without replicating DNA:

I have no answer, Im only studying DNA at a high school level and havent studied abiogenesis.
Like i said above, Im fairly open to creation at a basic level.


We seem to be veering off course. Do you guys want to split this into two threads, one for abiogenesis and one for evolution?

[zendra]

Sorry i must have missed some of your posts before.

Once again you are simply positing opinion instead of facts. The so-called “fossil record” is nothing more than a gap-filled man-made record of supposition, and nothing more. As I recall, I said something like “continual transitional fossils showing one animal ‘evolving’ into another”, and you have provided nothing of the sort.

Further, you have done nothing more than posting a link instead of providing the evidence that you need to support your assertions. Nor have you made the argument yourself, but are relying on wikapedia to make your case. AND you seemingly thought that by simply posting a link to a site with massive amounts of ‘suppositions’, that this could inundate the reader (this is called ‘Elephant hurling’, or ‘dumptrucking’ etc…? This is less than you need to be doing to support your assertions. If you want to argue the fossil record, or the fossil record of the horse (or whale), I’ll be more than happy to do so. In fact, if you want to take the time and argue ‘point-for-point’ the link you provided, that will be fine as well. But my question then becomes; do you really want to tackle so humongous a task? Sometimes when you posit such a link as evidence, you have then taken on the responsibility to provide support for every statement at that site. Further, it is contrary to forum rules to simply post a link as evidence or arguement. (NOTE: Please read the forum rules).
I would really like to see you present FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL “evidence for the evolution of the horse”, which you didn’t do above. All you did was throw up a vague and general link. So, for example; I would love to see your “empirical and factual” evidence linking the Eohippus (Hyracotherium), through the Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, and Merychippus (etcetera…) to the Equus, the modern horse. And, because you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide said evidence (not simply posting links).
**AND**
I would really like to see you present FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL “evidence for the evolution of the whale”, which you didn’t do above either. All you did was throw up a vague and general link. So, for example; I would love to see your “empirical and factual” evidence linking the Maiacetus inuus, Rodhocetus and Artiocetus (etcetera…) to the modern whale. And, because you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide said evidence (not simply posting links).

Ron, as much as it pains me to do so. I'd like to thank you. I've been talking about the fossil record, and I understand how links are made. The problem is that i haven't actually studied them as well as id like to believe, to be able to quote specific examples. I cant fairly argue for or against how well they support macroevolution. The best i can do is use arguments I'v learnt elsewhere.

Anything that is not is not factual is suppositional… And like your photograph analogy, the model of macroevolution is built upon assumptions and presuppositions, not facts. Just as ‘spotting similarities’ is suppositional and not factual. Again, this is pretty basic stuff.

Im not sure how much you value my argument after my last statement. However i dont see how you take linking fossils to be just assumptions. If your version of history is correct then you are right in saying that the links are not facts. But if your version is not correct, can you not see how evidence is being used to work out the most likely fact.

That is still a moving of the goalposts, as what you are now stating, is not what you previously stated (and insisting that I was missing your point, only points out that you didn’t describe your analogy cogently, logically, and reasonably). And, as I pointed out above; ‘spotting similarities’ is NOT in any way analogous to connecting ‘facts’ to ‘facts’ with ‘facts’ as it would be with sound ‘factual’ investigations.

It may seem like shifting goalposts to you if you misunderstood. But to me i have not changed them, I have simply tried to make them clearer.

I think I understand where we are getting mixed up. You seem to assume that i take the fossil links as complete fact, in reality i accept them as what appears to be the most likely possibility.

Further: Using ‘reasoning’ sans facts, or using ‘reasoning’ to fill in the ‘gaps’, is nothing more than guessing. Therefore you are doing nothing more than “believing” when you are “reasoning” without “factual support”. Not unlike the presuppositionalisim of macroevolution, and therein lies the ONLY similarity in your analogies. But, then again, I wouldn’t think you’d wish to use a bad example.

Reasoning is not guessing, that is why they are different words. Guessing implies simply stating "I think that one" without any logic. Reasoning is looking at the facts, at the evidence, and drawing reasonable conclusions because they are what best fit.

Second - There is not even ONE miracle that Jesus performed, that you can explain “naturally” today.

Lazareth and Jesus dead for 3 days= particular herb taken to mimic death.

Guards knocked out and stone moved from Jesus's grave= drug mixed with guards drink or wine given. Followers then came and moved stone.

Water into wine= preplanned solvent mixed into water

small scale healing= placebo effect or pre arrangements.

Third - Your assumption of your cousins “magic” trick is not analogous to ANY miracle that Jesus performed.

It may not compare in magnitude but it was never supposed to. My point was that in modern times we do not believe things to be miracles at first but instead clever tricks.

A lack of information for what? Or is it that you are simply not accepting the evidence and information adduced and extant. There is absolutely NO ‘lack of information’ as there is a plethora of historical and contemporaneous eyewitness support.

The thing is that you havent provided this "plethora of historical and contemporaneous eyewitness support". All i know of the miracles is what i heard in the children's section of church and your explanation of "Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it".

Further, if you are going to “claim” that the miracles that Jesus performed are analogous to the pseudo-miracles in the Sherlock Holmes movie, you need to provide the evidences that support your assertion.

Ok hows this. Jesus predicted that he would rise to life 3 days after death. 3 days after he died his rock tomb was found opened and later his followers claimed to have met him.
In Sherlock Holmes, Blackwood also claims to rise to life 3 days after death( he was proclaimed dead by the doctor Watson). After 3 days the half a tonne each slabs of sandstone covering his tomb were found broken and we later see Blackwood alive and well.

Are these similar enough?

[gilbo12345]

1. Homologous structures
2. Analogous structures
3. Embryology
4. Fossil record
5. Microevolution

Those were examples i gave, not analogies. And when did i ever state that those enzymes were like what started life.
I have no answer, Im only studying DNA at a high school level and havent studied abiogenesis.

I wrote a reply to this the other day but perhaps it didn't get through Ah well I'll send it again

1. Homologous structures are not evidence of evolution. Since it is based on a false premise, "since these things are similar they must have evolved". Being similar has nothing to do with verifying evolution as a process of getting to those similarities... You can infer, (assume), evolution... but you cannot use similarities as evidence for it. Furthermore common features, common design. This line of evidence can also be used for the creationist perspective hence if you wish to use it.... (Despite it having no explainatory value of evolutionary processes)... then you also allow its use as evidence for creationism.

2. You do realise that analogous structures is actually evidence AGAINST evolution? Since evolution is a "random process" then the mutations to bring about these nw functions must also be random and the probabilities of getting similar structures via different random mutations defies mathematics, one structure could be possible, however the sheer number of analogous structures out there defy the statistics.

3. How is embryology evidence of evolution? How does looking similar to a different animal mean that we came from them? I'll respond more when you show me how it is evidence of any evolutionary process.

4. Living fossils debunk the fossil record in favour of stable organisms over time, the most obvious fact is that if evolution was occuring then we shouldn't find fossils of organisms that have not changed over "millions" of years. Furthermore, fossilised trees found to penetrate many layers, (millions of years), of strata also debunk the fossil evidence as the timeline used in evolutionary claims about fossils is fundamentatally wrong when these trees are considered.

5. Small changes do not necessarly infer large changes.. More so since the large changes require MORE than just a slight variation... The emergence of multicellular life from single cellular REQUIRES novel genetic material not just a variant.
Furthermore, to claim that small changes over time is evolution, when it has not been observed to do so is an assumption and thus is not scientific.. Any "scientist" that claims this to be true is not a proper scientist, in regards to the scientific method and what it demands science to be.

[jason]

did he say embryology? that again is still taught? man!

[zendra]

1. Homologous structures are not evidence of evolution. Since it is based on a false premise, "since these things are similar they must have evolved". Being similar has nothing to do with verifying evolution as a process of getting to those similarities... You can infer, (assume), evolution... but you cannot use similarities as evidence for it. Furthermore common features, common design. This line of evidence can also be used for the creationist perspective hence if you wish to use it.... (Despite it having no explainatory value of evolutionary processes)... then you also allow its use as evidence for creationism.

I dont think i said the structures meant that evolution must be true, but they support evolution well, thats how it works, the theory that best fits the evidence. Could you please provide the creationist perspective?

2. You do realise that analogous structures is actually evidence AGAINST evolution? Since evolution is a "random process" then the mutations to bring about these nw functions must also be random and the probabilities of getting similar structures via different random mutations defies mathematics, one structure could be possible, however the sheer number of analogous structures out there defy the statistics.

No i didn't realize that. Just because mutations are random doesn't mean no similarities can be achieved. Would you say that because the beak of one bird increased in length over time the beak of another is unlikely to increase as well.

3. How is embryology evidence of evolution? How does looking similar to a different animal mean that we came from them? I'll respond more when you show me how it is evidence of any evolutionary process.

As far as i understand it we can view an organisms evolution through the embyronic development. As evolution works as small changes such as a slit at the front of the head moving back to form ears over time, we see the embryo develop the slit then as it grows the slit moves back. Unfortunately after a quick search the main feature seems to be mainly the tail.

4. Living fossils debunk the fossil record in favour of stable organisms over time, the most obvious fact is that if evolution was occuring then we shouldn't find fossils of organisms that have not changed over "millions" of years. Furthermore, fossilised trees found to penetrate many layers, (millions of years), of strata also debunk the fossil evidence as the timeline used in evolutionary claims about fossils is fundamentatally wrong when these trees are considered.

What do you mean living fossils? Im unsure about these unchanged fossils, the main conclusion i can think of is a mixture of punctuated evolution and less structural evolution, but hey maybe I cant answer it. Also could you explain these fossilized trees, we were taught that fossilization requires immediate covering otherwise it can decompose let alone covering millions of years.

Furthermore, to claim that small changes over time is evolution, when it has not been observed to do so is an assumption and thus is not scientific

Am i to be correct in saying you do not accept microevolution? If so i can provide examples of it.

did he say embryology? that again is still taught? man!

It is in New Zealand, it may not be the United States.

[gilbo12345]

1. I dont think i said the structures meant that evolution must be true, but they support evolution well, thats how it works, the theory that best fits the evidence. Could you please provide the creationist perspective?

2. No i didn't realize that. Just because mutations are random doesn't mean no similarities can be achieved. Would you say that because the beak of one bird increased in length over time the beak of another is unlikely to increase as well.

3. As far as i understand it we can view an organisms evolution through the embyronic development. As evolution works as small changes such as a slit at the front of the head moving back to form ears over time, we see the embryo develop the slit then as it grows the slit moves back. Unfortunately after a quick search the main feature seems to be mainly the tail.

4. What do you mean living fossils? Im unsure about these unchanged fossils, the main conclusion i can think of is a mixture of punctuated evolution and less structural evolution, but hey maybe I cant answer it. Also could you explain these fossilized trees, we were taught that fossilization requires immediate covering otherwise it can decompose let alone covering millions of years.

5. Am i to be correct in saying you do not accept microevolution? If so i can provide examples of it.
It is in New Zealand, it may not be the United States.

1. Common design = Common designer simple really and utilizes the least amount of assumptions.

2. I think you are a little confused on what analogous structures are... Bird beaks are homologous since they are percieved to "evolve" from the same ancestor and thus follow the same pathways of development.. what is analogous are

wings in birds / bats
compound eyes in trilobrites / insects

3. Firstly it is not a "slit" it is a pouch.. BIG difference here since a slit is a cut and infers a gill, where as a pouch infers nothing for evolution..

Secondly even IF they proceed through perceived "stages of development" how is this evidence of any evolutionary process to have occurred?

4. Yes there are many fossils that have not changed over time, thus

No change = No evolution, you cannot claim PE since there has been no change taking place... its just statis...

As you just said, in order to fossilise the tree it would need to be covered in one go.... Yet as mentioned earlier the top layer is "dated" to be "millions of years" younger than the bottom which the tree passes through... Hence this calls into doubt the ages of these strata since if they were correct the tree would have rotted long ago... Its these contradictory evidence that defy logical thought processes and are the same ones that evolutionists conveniently ignore.

5. Micro is Variation, call it what you will but it is the change WITHIN a species, as I said the changes within breeds... I do not believe in "macro" evolution whereby the faith statement.. Variation + millions of years = evolution is used as the sole "evidence" of this... There is NO empirical evidence linking variation to evolution it is 100% assumed and thus is not scientific and most definitely not a "fact"

[Ron]

The point you seem to be missing here is that you are basing your entire worldview on a hypothesis of multiplied time plus prayer. A worldview of “what if’s” and unproven supposed outcomes. You do see that don’t you? Whenever you say something like “if you were able to”, then add the fictitious “millions of years”

I realize I have been not that responsive in producing evidence( Ill get to that soon). Whats curious is that I thought you accepted microevolution/adaptation
"as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true"
"microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation” within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day"
Yet you now seem to be calling it "prayer" and “if you were able to”. Perhaps you could clarify.

What I have always accepted AND maintained is that the word “microevolution” in is nothing more than “adaptation within a kind /species” (which is accepted by most everyone), and that evolutionists promulgate the word “microevolution” as an attempt to support evolution in general, and “macroevolution” in specific. Further, there is absolutely NO factual evidence FOR “macroevolution”, therefore evolutionists must resort to these tactics (amongst many others) to support their worldview. So I extend it out-and-out, and say “why not simply call it what it is… ADAPTATION! And cut out all of the convolution!”

But, what I find as odd here is that in your above submission, you are attempting to misrepresent what I have always said, and always maintained, AND have said within the context of our conversation by attempting the standard spurious tactic of “conversion by definition” (i.e. equivocation). The following “ACTUAL QUOTES” is the line of discussion that led up to your fallacious reply:

Well, since there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support macroevolution; and since all the pseudo-evidence is presupposed, assumed and/or ‘a priori’, I would have to say that actual and factual empirical evidence would be a start.

What i mean is, if you were able to watch a species evolve over millions of years. How much would the species have to change before you class it as macro instead of micro.

The point you seem to be missing here is that you are basing your entire worldview on a hypothesis of multiplied time plus prayer. A worldview of “what if’s” and unproven supposed outcomes. You do see that don’t you? Whenever you say something like “if you were able to”, then add the fictitious “millions of years”

And now you have inserted “microevolution” in the stead of “macroevolution” in my statements, in an attempt to divert from my refutation of your submissions of macroevolution as anything other than presupposed, assumed and/or ‘a priori’.

::Mod Hat On:: Equivocation IS a violation of this forum! You are now warned against doing so again in your future posts! ::Mod Hat Off::

And now to evidence, how about I list some main points that I was taught about and we can go through them one by one?
Homologous structures
Analogous structures
Embryology
Fossil record
Microevolution

First and foremost, listing “main points” has absolutely nothing to do with providing “evidence” and “Facts”; it is simply making more assumed statements, and pretending that they will be accepted as facts.

Secondly, if you’d like to attempt to provide the “evidence” and “Facts” that show how these “main points” factually prove “Macro evolutions”, by all means, do so. And as you do, I’ll expose the assumptions and presuppositions built into your assertions.

Further, I realize that this is what you were taught at university, but I also submit that the “critical thinker” doesn’t merely “accept” what they are taught, but are determinant in reconciling those lessons with the “evidence” and “Facts” of reality. And from that point will either validate or refute as assumptive, said teachings.

Fifth – Atomic theory is only partially empirically verified (and very dangerous at that), and is still greatly hypothetical at best.
Sixth – I would dearly love to see you attempt to empirically verify your “there is plenty of space around an atom to compress the universe” hypotheses. This should be very interesting.

Well my point relies on you accepting atomic theory, what problems are you talking about? it is definitely more than a hypothesis. Also I never said that the whole universe would fit in the space of an atom. But if the current theory is correct then there would be space for the nucleus and electrons of atoms to squeeze closer.

First – Are you implying that ALL atomic theory (or that atomic theory in its entirety) is FACTUAL? If so, please provide your facts and evidences that ALL atomic theory is FACTUAL!
Second – Are you assuming that I HAVE to accept atomic theory in order for you to provide the actual “Facts” and “Evidence” to support your assertions? You do see the fallacy in your logic here, do you not?
Third – I apologize if I misinterpreted your assertion on the space between atoms.
Fourth – Explain (using FACTS and EVIDENCE) as to how ALL of the atoms in the universe have enough “space” between the nucleus and electrons of said atoms to squeeze together in order to contain the entire universe in that space; and to do so under the auspices that the universe had to expand from a point smaller than that of say “a period in this page”, as the big bang assumes.
Fifth – Use Atomic Theory via “Facts” and “Evidence” in your explanation of number four above.
Sixth – And do so without being “hypothetical”, otherwise it’s an hypothesis!
Seventh – I won’t even throw the “origins of the atoms” question monkey wrench into your hypothesis.

Do you not even realize how complex those enzymes AND your DNA are? If you did, you wouldn’t even attempt to correlate them with the word “simple”.

I do realize the complexity of DNA, that is why I'm open to creation at a basic level.

“Materialistic Evolution” has no “Factual” evidence to contradict the complexity in EVERYTHING around us; thusly rendering materialistic evolution as further and further away from logical and scientific verifiability, and closer and closer to a faith filled worldview that requires dogmatic zeal to defend.

[Ron]

You may want to look a little more “in depth” at the complexity of life before attempting to analogize in such a manner. Further, your analogy fails because enzymes inside your mouth, and DNA nucleotide bonding are nothing like life from non-life.

Those were examples i gave, not analogies.

Zendra, in your “examples”, you attempt to posit the actions of the “enzymes” inside your mouth, and the bonding actions of dna nucleotides as analogues to empirical evidence I called for. You really need to understand analogous reasoning a little better:

Again, how is any of that “simple”? Further, can you provide actual empirical evidence for “life simply being chemical reactions”, and then provide empirically (factual evidence for) those “simple chemicals” causing life from non-life? Or are you “simply” thinking about it?

Inside my mouth are enzymes which help break down food for digestine.
In my dna nucleotides are bonding with each other while others are being broken apart by proteins.

In the above, you ARE attempting to analogize. And this is why I provide the actual “quote boxes” in my refutations. In this way, you cannot deny what you have said. AND provided, is a link back to our quotes, so as to provide contextual congruity as well!

And when did i ever state that those enzymes were like what started life.

Try looking in your below response to my refutation of your atheistic creation assertions:

As far as “someone suddenly created every complex thing on the universe” you say? Even that doesn’t compare the wild imagination that put together “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, “intelligence from non-intelligence” etcetera… Let’s try this:

In terms of life from non-life I'm not too well learned in abiogenesis, however if you think about life simply being chemical reactions then it doesnt seem as unlikely. I realize I havent explained my point well and I'll be happy to clarify if you like though I feel we are getting of course.

Further, you haven’t provided ANY clarifications to explain your points; you haven’t even provided ANY facts at all (as I have repeatedly as for, to support your assertions)! And yet you are quick to posit your assertions whilst using vague language like “if you think about” and “doesn’t seem as unlikely”. If you are “not too well learned” in a subject, at least admit that you are ASSUMING, and not providing facts to support your assertions. Further, be willing to learn where you are unlearned.

Of course the problem is that all these enzymes are encoded by the DNA. I hope you see the chicken or the egg problem here. You need both at the same time. This is just one macroevolutionary 'canyon,' and the only way you can jump it is to make up some wannabe 'science' story.

Please answer how the above enzymes were encoded without replicating DNA:

I have no answer, Im only studying DNA at a high school level and havent studied abiogenesis.
Like i said above, Im fairly open to creation at a basic level.

Then you shouldn’t make assertions as factual, when attempting to argue. Further, you should actually address the person you are arguing against, instead of throwing it into a conversation you and I are having, as this has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.

We seem to be veering off course. Do you guys want to split this into two threads, one for abiogenesis and one for evolution?

The funny thing here is that this OP was started by an atheist as a question to Christians (or those who know that macroevolution isn’t provable or viably factual). The question wasn’t directed towards those who put their faith I macroevolution. Further, most every Christian (or those who know that macroevolution isn’t provable or viably factual), and other critical thinkers understand the ties that bind abiogenesis to evolution in general, and macroevolution specifically. Therefore, NO, this doesn’t need to be split.

[Ron]

Sorry i must have missed some of your posts before.

It looks as though you have missed and/or overlooked massive amounts of my posts that directly refute your assertions. Being that as it may, it’s all good, because that might be an explanation in-and-of-itself.

Once again you are simply positing opinion instead of facts. The so-called “fossil record” is nothing more than a gap-filled man-made record of supposition, and nothing more. As I recall, I said something like “continual transitional fossils showing one animal ‘evolving’ into another”, and you have provided nothing of the sort.

Further, you have done nothing more than posting a link instead of providing the evidence that you need to support your assertions. Nor have you made the argument yourself, but are relying on wikapedia to make your case. AND you seemingly thought that by simply posting a link to a site with massive amounts of ‘suppositions’, that this could inundate the reader (this is called ‘Elephant hurling’, or ‘dumptrucking’ etc…? This is less than you need to be doing to support your assertions. If you want to argue the fossil record, or the fossil record of the horse (or whale), I’ll be more than happy to do so. In fact, if you want to take the time and argue ‘point-for-point’ the link you provided, that will be fine as well. But my question then becomes; do you really want to tackle so humongous a task? Sometimes when you posit such a link as evidence, you have then taken on the responsibility to provide support for every statement at that site. Further, it is contrary to forum rules to simply post a link as evidence or arguement. (NOTE: Please read the forum rules).
I would really like to see you present FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL “evidence for the evolution of the horse”, which you didn’t do above. All you did was throw up a vague and general link. So, for example; I would love to see your “empirical and factual” evidence linking the Eohippus (Hyracotherium), through the Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, and Merychippus (etcetera…) to the Equus, the modern horse. And, because you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide said evidence (not simply posting links).
**AND**
I would really like to see you present FACTUAL and EMPIRICAL “evidence for the evolution of the whale”, which you didn’t do above either. All you did was throw up a vague and general link. So, for example; I would love to see your “empirical and factual” evidence linking the Maiacetus inuus, Rodhocetus and Artiocetus (etcetera…) to the modern whale. And, because you are making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide said evidence (not simply posting links).

Ron, as much as it pains me to do so. I'd like to thank you. I've been talking about the fossil record, and I understand how links are made. The problem is that i haven't actually studied them as well as id like to believe, to be able to quote specific examples. I cant fairly argue for or against how well they support macroevolution. The best i can do is use arguments I'v learnt elsewhere.

It pains you to thank me? I find that odd… Also, my retort had absolutely nothing to do with how internet links are made; but rather that you cannot simply provide a link as your answers. You can absolutely provide quotes, but you then are required to substantiate those quotes with “FACTS”… Quotes are not facts… Facts are facts…

Anything that is not is not factual is suppositional… And like your photograph analogy, the model of macroevolution is built upon assumptions and presuppositions, not facts. Just as ‘spotting similarities’ is suppositional and not factual. Again, this is pretty basic stuff.

Im not sure how much you value my argument after my last statement. However i dont see how you take linking fossils to be just assumptions. If your version of history is correct then you are right in saying that the links are not facts. But if your version is not correct, can you not see how evidence is being used to work out the most likely fact.

The problem you’re having here is assuming that something can be both “most likely” and a “fact”. I’ll do this one more time for you:

Fact (Noun):

Something known to be true - something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened.

The Truth or Reality of something - the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

Piece of information - a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth.

Now, if you’ll notice the word TRUTH is used in each of the above referenced definitions of the word “fact”… So what does “Truth” mean:

Truth (Noun):

Something factual - the thing that corresponds to fact or reality.

True quality - a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.

True Statement - a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.

Obvious fact - something that is so clearly true that it hardly needs to be stated.

Neither “Macroevolution” nor the fictitious “evolutionary fossil record” fit within any of the above definitions.

The fossils ARE a part of history, BUT the evolutionary ties (promulgated by evolutionists) are merely assumptive, because you have absolutely no historical evidence other than the fossils as your factual evidence. So, whenever YOU attempt to tie these fossils together, across supposed “Millions” of years (more assumption), you are filling in the gaps with your mere opinion, not facts.

Further, “my version” of history is only the historical facts. Even I am not so bold as to call my assumptions “facts”. Why… Because I understand the definition of the word “fact”, and cannot dishonestly claim something a fact, which is clearly NOT a fact. Those are “faith statements” alone, not facts. And when a “faith statement” is defended dogmatically with vigor and zeal, it is the makings of a religion.

That is still a moving of the goalposts, as what you are now stating, is not what you previously stated (and insisting that I was missing your point, only points out that you didn’t describe your analogy cogently, logically, and reasonably). And, as I pointed out above; ‘spotting similarities’ is NOT in any way analogous to connecting ‘facts’ to ‘facts’ with ‘facts’ as it would be with sound ‘factual’ investigations.

It may seem like shifting goalposts to you if you misunderstood. But to me i have not changed them, I have simply tried to make them clearer.

I think I understand where we are getting mixed up. You seem to assume that i take the fossil links as complete fact, in reality i accept them as what appears to be the most likely possibility.

I didn’t misunderstand anything. If you go back to the original assertions (by both you and I) you’ll see that you failed to make your case, and further moved the goal posts to attempt to correct that. I, on the other hand soundly refuted BOTH of your assertions. If you want to rehash your mistakes, I’ll be more than happy to go over them again.

Further: Using ‘reasoning’ sans facts, or using ‘reasoning’ to fill in the ‘gaps’, is nothing more than guessing. Therefore you are doing nothing more than “believing” when you are “reasoning” without “factual support”. Not unlike the presuppositionalisim of macroevolution, and therein lies the ONLY similarity in your analogies. But, then again, I wouldn’t think you’d wish to use a bad example.

Reasoning is not guessing, that is why they are different words. Guessing implies simply stating "I think that one" without any logic. Reasoning is looking at the facts, at the evidence, and drawing reasonable conclusions because they are what best fit.

Yes, reasoning IS guessing, if you are attempting to make your points (or draw your conclusion) “without facts”, or attempting to fill in the gaps between facts with your reasoning alone. It is nothing more than assumptive guessing. In other words, if you do not base your conclusion on facts alone, your conclusion is assumptive. You do understand that, do you not?

Further, a “reasonable” conclusion based on assumptions “between the facts” is only “reasonable” to the unreasoning!

[Ron]

Second - There is not even ONE miracle that Jesus performed, that you can explain “naturally” today.

Lazareth and Jesus dead for 3 days= particular herb taken to mimic death.

What particular herb was on hand, and available to the common Jew in Israel that would mimic death?

And, in the case of Jesus; what particular herb was on hand, and available to the common Jew in Israel that would mimic death, AND help Him to “FULLY” recover from a brutal Roman scourging , crucifixion, and spear thrust THROUGH THE HEART within three days so as to be able to walk around with no ill effects, walk through walls (yet another miracle, converse normally and walk miles across Israel to communicate to over “FIVE HUNDRED” different people? This should be interesting…

Further, what actual “FACTUAL” evidence (other than your mere opinion) do you have to counter the eye witness testimony? Can you provide contemporaneous counters to the actual evidence?

Guards knocked out and stone moved from Jesus's grave= drug mixed with guards drink or wine given. Followers then came and moved stone.

So now the eye witnesses are liars? Do you have contemporaneous evidence of this as well, or is this simply more ‘a priori’ assumption? And, to what would it benefit his followers to lie for Him? At best, they would face the brutal Roman scourging and crucifixion as well. Can you even provide logical reasoning for his followers to lie?

Water into wine= preplanned solvent mixed into water

Let’s see, the comment about the wine was that it was of the highest quality. What solvent of the period, do you suppose, would render water as the highest quality wine available? Further, Jesus ‘spoke’ the water into wine; therefore it is even a greater miracle, because, according to your logic He ‘spoke’ the solvent into existence that turned the water into the ‘highest quality’ wine.

You’ve simply compounded one miracle, in order to refute another…

small scale healing= placebo effect or pre arrangements.

And exactly which of the hundreds of healings are you speaking of, that was caused by the “placebo effect”. Was it healing the blind? Perhaps healing the lepers? With so many to choose from, I’m sure you have something in mind… And, of course, once again, you have contemporaneous evidence?

Third - Your assumption of your cousins “magic” trick is not analogous to ANY miracle that Jesus performed.

It may not compare in magnitude but it was never supposed to. My point was that in modern times we do not believe things to be miracles at first but instead clever tricks.

Again with the “believe” word… That implies “faith” you know… The point was that you thought you could provide modern answers to the miracles of Jesus, and you failed to do so (and what you claimed you could do, therefore you didn’t even reach the minimum of your responsibilities). And it was extended from your failed attempt to analogize your cousins “magic trick” with the miracles of Jesus.

But, you did get one thing right it does “not compare in magnitude”!

[Ron]

A lack of information for what? Or is it that you are simply not accepting the evidence and information adduced and extant. There is absolutely NO ‘lack of information’ as there is a plethora of historical and contemporaneous eyewitness support.

The thing is that you havent provided this "plethora of historical and contemporaneous eyewitness support". All i know of the miracles is what i heard in the children's section of church and your explanation of "Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it".

Have you not read the New Testament? Do you have any contemporaneous evidence to counter the eyewitness evidence contained in the New Testament? Have you not read the writings of the Early Church fathers? Do you have any contemporaneous evidence to counter the eyewitness evidence contained in the writings of the First Church fathers? Have you not read the writings of Carius Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Thallus, Celsus, Tertulian, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Quadratus of Athens, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hegesippus, Papias, (etcetera… etcetera…)? Do you have any contemporaneous evidence to counter their writings? Or are you simply contenting yourself in making spurious quips like “All i know of the miracles is what i heard in the children's section of church”, because you have no real answer to the questions I posed, AND you have no real evidence to support your assertions? Because that would as disingenuous as me saying “all I know about the miracles of macroevolution is what I got fed in grammar school and high school”, and not providing you evidence for my assertions.

If you truly wanted to access the plethora of evidence FOR the “Historicity of Christ”, google is a good start. Further, if you wish to truly discuss the evidences for Jesus and His miracles, you really need to get over your penchant for inane quips. Because the archeological evidence supporting Christ, the New Testament AND Christians; and the textual support extant supporting Christ, the New Testament AND Christians is overwhelming.

Further, if you are going to “claim” that the miracles that Jesus performed are analogous to the pseudo-miracles in the Sherlock Holmes movie, you need to provide the evidences that support your assertion.

Ok hows this. Jesus predicted that he would rise to life 3 days after death. 3 days after he died his rock tomb was found opened and later his followers claimed to have met him.
In Sherlock Holmes, Blackwood also claims to rise to life 3 days after death( he was proclaimed dead by the doctor Watson). After 3 days the half a tonne each slabs of sandstone covering his tomb were found broken and we later see Blackwood alive and well.

Another bad analogy for many reasons Zendra…

First – Jesus AND His apostles were actual, historical people who went by their actual names: Holmes, Watson and Blackwood were not.
Therefore your “Blackwood” was never seen “Blackwood alive and well”.

Second – The disciples testified that they not only saw Jesus die, but they testified that He was alive and they handled Him, spoke to Him and ate with Him. AND they were willing to give their lives in horrendous and torturous deaths instead of deny His witness.

Third – You have absolutely NO evidence provided that any of this can be explained other than miraculously, and yet you attempt to provide fictitious props as evidence to support your assertions.

Are these similar enough?

No, they’re not similar at all Zendra, therefore they are not at all analogous, showing that your attempt at logic does not follow here (again, a non sequitur). On one hand, the Biblical accounts are “eye-witnessed”, and your attempts to refute them are merely non-contemporaneous assumption based ‘a priori’ wants. Further, it seems that you are attempting to posit logically fallacious accusations simply because you don’t like the miracles of Jesus. If this weren’t the case, you would either have “actual evidence”, or admit your aggressiveness is basically assumptive and presupposed.

[Portillo]

If there was no God I would definately be an atheist. But unfortunately, I cant deny the truth.