Actually, I would add the debate is also whether the observance of changes in traits leads us to the conclusion that information is created through some natural mechanism. We know all traits are just code on our DNA. The debate is, where does new information come from? Have we observed nature to create new DNA code?
"I'm merely anticipating your coming argument and getting it out of the way so we won't have to waste any further time on that."
That's my definition of a straw man argument, you're welcome. Anticipating something, and attacking it, rather than answering the question. Which, you still haven't. Where did the laws of this universe come from?
muaguana, you keep creating straw men arguments. I'm not claiming anything about a God being complex or not, or who defines complexity. I asked questions. If you're up to date on the latest evolution thinking, especially along lines of the evo priest Richard Dawkins, its evolution that makes the claim about what is complex and what isn't, and uses the idea that only simple forms come from nothing, and then evolve to complex forms. I'm trying to follow such thinking, and you keep attacking the idea of God. I'm asking questions about evolution and you answer by attacking a God you don't believe exists. Hmm, sounds like, a fanatic.
I think this argument has been destroyed enough already, but since someone actually voted for it, I'll say it again. Von Lauder, add up the totals of what you mentioned, and compare it just to Stalin's atheistic regime. That's just one man. The agrument you make is worthless, and actually hurts your cause.
Are you serious? Is that your best shot? Do you see why throwing out there "so many contradictions" is so overused, and silly? Gen 22 happened BEFORE Gen 25. At the time of Gen 22, Abraham had only Isaac (BTW, in light of God's promise to Abraham about building a nation, He did not consider Ishmael his son). Then in Gen 25, Abraham got another wife and more kids. I mean, no offense, but if you call that reading comprehension, or reading in context, you have much to learn my young padwan. I can't believe this must even be explained. And someone voted it up.
Be careful, you sound like a Christian defending why violence is supposedly done in religion's name, but has nothing to do w/the religion itself. Its one of the atheist's favorite argument against religion (just read God Delusion).
I've stated it before, but the debate isn't whether we should help those who are poor and have compassion, but whether government controlled welfare is the best way to do that. Its not like a republican thinks, hmm, giving to poor is bad, so get rid of welfare. Rather, hmm, a more effective means of giving to the poor is letting private sector do it, b/c government does it poorly. Also, putting policies in place to reduce the need to give to the poor, like lower taxes, smaller government.
Wow, the depth of that reasoning is astounding. You only believe in video or audio files? That's pretty sad. I hope you don't believe anyone when they say they love you.
If people question, that means God is unreliable? Even an atheist scientist would say that's nonsense. Science is all about questioning what is believed to be true. For instance, it was questioned that the world was flat, does that questioning have any bearing on whether the world exists, or is flat or not? No, the truth is still there, whether its questioned or not.
geoff, be careful, "reason" is a very objective word. Again, you might consider such claims unreasonable, others wouldn't.
rocknwow, I'm not going down any slippery slope. Both sides have the same slope. Either there was a God who created time and space, or, there was nothing that created time and space. Or rather, it just happened. I certainly understand the idea that complexity just can't happen, but I wonder, who defines complex? Let's use the same argument that's used against calling this universe a creation. Isn't "complexity" just as arbitrary?
Also, are the laws of this universe complex? B/c I wonder what they evolved from?
Hey blammo, its great you feel that way, however, it boils down to, so what? You don't want certain things taught in public school, well, neither do I. Let's be fair...huh! Not exactly a reasoned debate. Not to mention your silly argument, you don't want the school to be biased (well, unless that bias is against religion). Hmm, and I thought Christians were the hypocrites?
Have you studied the history of public education in this country? Did you know the first book used in public education was the Bible? Did you know the reason public education was considered valuable was so that anyone could read the Bible for themselves? You can't ignore Christianity when studying the beginning of this country, or even the first 2 centuries.
Here in a society that prides itself on only relying on "proof" and "evidence", its hard to believe that anyone could argue religion wasn't important to the founders of this country, and to public education specifically, and therefore very much in the public arena. It comes down to the fact that it has nothing to do w/evidence, but what are we willing to believe? We see what we want to see.
