Challenge the Atheist!

[BreezeWood]

I don't think the presence of pain and suffering is disproof of a benevolent god.

Think about it this way--children are spanked as a form of discipline. The parents spank their children not because they are evil, posses hatred or even angry, but because they want their child to survive into adulthood and live a full and meaningful life.

Thus this is a case where the subject experience pain(the child) and the parents administered the pain because they are benevolent.

Of course some of you are going to ask "How is a spanking benovolent?" I is in the sense that there exist a greater purpose for the child being spanked. If the parents allow the child to run any which way, the greater purpose for that child is not realized. That would be a tragedy, which is due to a lack of benevolence to that child.

Hey--maybe I could make a good charlatan? I can argue that pain and suffering is a form of benevolence. Very anti-intuitive, yes?

whatever is this thread about ? - Challenge the Atheist!

numan: Evil and pain exist, so God cannot be all-benevolent.

amrchaos: I don't think the presence of pain and suffering is disproof of a benevolent god.

Atheism is death per the last breath - nothing in life has meaning ... per a post physiological existence.


- just that alone begs an answer by Atheist of physiological evolution from one generation to the next as visually evident much less the intelligence that creates it and by all species.


including "Evil" ... in the statement is the very reason for a God as the Benevolence is not the well being of mankind but evils prevention from within the Everlasting - Satan is dead.

not that an Atheist is wrong - mankind is expendable and the physiological form is going to perish. but by an admission of Evil the Atheist acknowledges an existence other than the physiological that when eliminated may open another avenue from its removal - Remission to the Everlasting.


pain and suffering as well as death is a daily occurrence in the Garden, so what - is there suppose to be a choice ?

 

[numan]

I don't think the presence of pain and suffering is disproof of a benevolent god.

Think about it this way--children are spanked as a form of discipline. The parents spank their children not because they are evil, posses hatred or even angry, but because they want their child to survive into adulthood and live a full and meaningful life.

Thus this is a case where the subject experience pain(the child) and the parents administered the pain because they are benevolent.

Of course some of you are going to ask "How is a spanking benovolent?" I is in the sense that there exist a greater purpose for the child being spanked. If the parents allow the child to run any which way, the greater purpose for that child is not realized. That would be a tragedy, which is due to a lack of benevolence to that child.

Hey--maybe I could make a good charlatan? I can argue that pain and suffering is a form of benevolence. Very anti-intuitive, yes?

Well, I don't think your basic point is entirely silly. I also can think of ways in which suffering can still exist together with a benevolent God. Of course, my ideas are much snazzier and more subtle than anyone here has come up with, but I will not share them. I don't want to give any encouragement to religious maniacs.

However, I think all reasonable ways of squaring this particular circle mean that certain limitations need to be placed on the powers of God, which the lunatics of faith are usually unwilling to accept.

The basic problem is as I have repeatedly said : a God of unlimited Power and Knowledge could always come up with a way to end suffering and still achieve the good effects which the fanatics imagine can only be be brought about by suffering.
.

 

[numan]

Since neither the Athiest position or Christian position can ever be proven (at least in the foreseeable future), I like to stay right smack dab in the middle and embark on my own open-ended spiritual journey to land wherever seems right.

Well, I agree that you are correct in the abstract. I think virtually every proposition can be doubted, and none can be guaranteed to be provable.
(for Heaven's sake, I can doubt that I even exist, and it is child's play for me to construct a possible universe in which it would be meaningless to say that I exist)

However, on the basis of reasonable probability, the traditional notions of Deity are too simple-minded to be very likely. What we have learned of science, particularly anthropology and human psychology, is more satisfactory in explaining how gods were invented than religion is in explaining the world.

Science has revealed to us a universe of profound subtlety and grandeur far more impressive than the simple-minded, crude and incoherent notions of deity which the religions continue to foist off on the credulous.

Remember, no one ever has proved that Zeus and Osiris don't exist. No one believes in these fictions because they are too crude and simple-minded to be believable. Science has done the same thing to our present gods -- it's just that most people are just too uneducated and mentally incoherent to realize it yet.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I find it curious that in this discussion and most of the ones like it I have seen, non-believers in the traditional Christian God go to considerable lengths to define the type of deity they do not believe in. Apparent believers in such a God (usually identified by their Biblical quotations) act as if a definition of God is not only apparent, but has been agreed upon by everyone. Since this is an obvious counter factual, they simply keep talking past the points raised. In time the first group realizes the entire discussion is futile and go away. To the believers, these discussions are simply a form of intellectual masturbation; achieving nothing but engendering a feeling of satisfaction.

[/observation]

Lol, pretty much sums it up.

Since neither the Athiest position or Christian position can ever be proven (at least in the foreseeable future), I like to stay right smack dab in the middle and embark on my own open-ended spiritual journey to land wherever seems right.

Fact is, a God could very well exist so I’m not removing that from the playbook entirely.


.

Not just one but even millions of them depending upon the definition of a "god". Any being with powers greater than our own could be deemed to be a "god". In an infinite universe the probability of beings with powers greater than our own is close to 100%. Whether these "gods" care one iota about a lower species of sentient apes is unlikely unless we provided something of value to them. Endless prayers begging for things doesn't have much merit when it comes to something any self respecting "gods" would be interested in (which probably accounts for why none of them are ever answered.)

 

[The Irish Ram]

The presence of pain and suffering is proof of sin though. And the origin of it for mankind.

Sin effects the blood, and passes from generation to generation. How grieved our Father must have been that day. Imagine having a sick child with an infection that has gone septic. That is how God saw Adam and Eve and sees us. And the illness of sin equals death. A foreign concept in Eden.

From Scripture, concerning justice, we know this,
1.That sin equals death physically and a separation from God eternally.
2.That a transfusion of pure ( not septic) blood is the only cure for blood infected by the disease of sin.

God is 100% just, as in justice, as in obeying the law. Grabbing Eve's hand before she grabbed that apple was not an option. It violates free will, and Satan would have been able to accuse God of lying if He made that decision for Eve.
But the first prophesy in the Bible right there in that Garden, was Eve's revenge for womankind.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity <(Jesus) between you and the woman, and between your seed and hers; He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.&#8221;

( one wound deadly, while the other a temporary discomfort.)

God had no need of a human womb, and the Messiah could have just shown up, but the very thing/woman that Satan deceived and all of the grief that was the consequence of that action, would culminate in her seed, crushing Satan's head, while the best Satan could do was bruise His heel.
Since women have eggs and not seed, and during pregnancy, the woman and fetus do not share blood systems, Jesus' blood was pure God blood, from the Father. Our transfusion.
Say, "Thank you" and confirm your reservation in the book of life. That is all you are required to do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The presence of pain and suffering is proof of sin though. And the origin of it for mankind.

What "sins" have animals committed? They feel "pain and suffering". Did your God punish them too for the "sins" of Adam and Eve? How do they get "saved" from their "sins"? Does their "pain and suffering" prove that they too have "souls" that could end up in "heaven"?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Since neither the Athiest position or Christian position can ever be proven (at least in the foreseeable future), I like to stay right smack dab in the middle and embark on my own open-ended spiritual journey to land wherever seems right.

Well, I agree that you are correct in the abstract. I think virtually every proposition can be doubted, and none can be guaranteed to be provable.
(for Heaven's sake, I can doubt that I even exist, and it is child's play for me to construct a possible universe in which it would be meaningless to say that I exist)

However, on the basis of reasonable probability, the traditional notions of Deity are too simple-minded to be very likely. What we have learned of science, particularly anthropology and human psychology, is more satisfactory in explaining how gods were invented than religion is in explaining the world.

Science has revealed to us a universe of profound subtlety and grandeur far more impressive than the simple-minded, crude and incoherent notions of deity which the religions continue to foist off on the credulous.

Remember, no one ever has proved that Zeus and Osiris don't exist. No one believes in these fictions because they are too crude and simple-minded to be believable. Science has done the same thing to our present gods -- it's just that most people are just too uneducated and mentally incoherent to realize it yet.
.

Amos, "God said in 800 years He was going to darken the earth at noon".
numan, "no he didn't."
Thallus, "The earth went dark, at noon".
numan, "no it didn't."

Ah, science and Probability:
The odds of 500 amino acids lining up in correct order to produce one single living cell is one in 10 to the 200th. 10 plus 200 zero's behind it.

The odds against these events occurring are:
Christ born in Bethlehem and being from the tribe of Judah 1 in 2,400
preceded by a messenger 1 in 20
entered Jerusalem of a donkey colt 1 in 50
betrayed by a friend 1 in 10
hands and feet pierced 1 in 100
wounded by enemies 1-10
betrayed for 30 pieces of silver 1 in 50
beaten and spit upon 1 in 10
betrayal money thrown back into temple and used for Potter's field 1 in 200
silent before His accusers 1 in 100
crucified between thieves 1 in 100
gambled for His garments 1 in 100
side pierced 1 in 100
buried in rich man's tomb 1 in 100
darkness covering the earth 1 in 1,000

The combined probability against these predictions occurring to one man is equal to,
1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or
1 chance in 480 Billion X 1 Billion X 1Trillion.

 

[HUGGY]

Since neither the Athiest position or Christian position can ever be proven (at least in the foreseeable future), I like to stay right smack dab in the middle and embark on my own open-ended spiritual journey to land wherever seems right.

Well, I agree that you are correct in the abstract. I think virtually every proposition can be doubted, and none can be guaranteed to be provable.
(for Heaven's sake, I can doubt that I even exist, and it is child's play for me to construct a possible universe in which it would be meaningless to say that I exist)

However, on the basis of reasonable probability, the traditional notions of Deity are too simple-minded to be very likely. What we have learned of science, particularly anthropology and human psychology, is more satisfactory in explaining how gods were invented than religion is in explaining the world.

Science has revealed to us a universe of profound subtlety and grandeur far more impressive than the simple-minded, crude and incoherent notions of deity which the religions continue to foist off on the credulous.

Remember, no one ever has proved that Zeus and Osiris don't exist. No one believes in these fictions because they are too crude and simple-minded to be believable. Science has done the same thing to our present gods -- it's just that most people are just too uneducated and mentally incoherent to realize it yet.
.

Amos, "God said in 800 years He was going to darken the earth at noon".
numan, "no he didn't."
Thallus, "The earth went dark, at noon".
numan, "no it didn't."

Ah, science and Probability:
The odds of 500 amino acids lining up in correct order to produce one single living cell is one in 10 to the 200th. 10 plus 200 zero's behind it.

The odds against these events occurring are:
Christ born in Bethlehem and being from the tribe of Judah 1 in 2,400
preceded by a messenger 1 in 20
entered Jerusalem of a donkey colt 1 in 50
betrayed by a friend 1 in 10
hands and feet pierced 1 in 100
wounded by enemies 1-10
betrayed for 30 pieces of silver 1 in 50
beaten and spit upon 1 in 10
betrayal money thrown back into temple and used for Potter's field 1 in 200
silent before His accusers 1 in 100
crucified between thieves 1 in 100
gambled for His garments 1 in 100
side pierced 1 in 100
buried in rich man's tomb 1 in 100
darkness covering the earth 1 in 1,000

The combined probability against these predictions occurring to one man is equal to,
1 chance in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or
1 chance in 480 Billion X 1 Billion X 1Trillion.

Where did you get this garbage? First of all the first life forms didn't have a full helix. That assumption is rediculous. The first life forms were extremely simple. You have a very child-like view of science and a preclativity to absorb propaganda. Strangely your simplistic approach to building knowledge in your brain is not unlike the crude selections the first chemical bonds used to digest what they needed to survive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think the presence of pain and suffering is disproof of a benevolent god.

Think about it this way--children are spanked as a form of discipline. The parents spank their children not because they are evil, posses hatred or even angry, but because they want their child to survive into adulthood and live a full and meaningful life.

Thus this is a case where the subject experience pain(the child) and the parents administered the pain because they are benevolent.

Of course some of you are going to ask "How is a spanking benovolent?" I is in the sense that there exist a greater purpose for the child being spanked. If the parents allow the child to run any which way, the greater purpose for that child is not realized. That would be a tragedy, which is due to a lack of benevolence to that child.

Hey--maybe I could make a good charlatan? I can argue that pain and suffering is a form of benevolence. Very anti-intuitive, yes?

Well, I don't think your basic point is entirely silly. I also can think of ways in which suffering can still exist together with a benevolent God. Of course, my ideas are much snazzier and more subtle than anyone here has come up with, but I will not share them. I don't want to give any encouragement to religious maniacs.

However, I think all reasonable ways of squaring this particular circle mean that certain limitations need to be placed on the powers of God, which the lunatics of faith are usually unwilling to accept.

The basic problem is as I have repeatedly said : a God of unlimited Power and Knowledge could always come up with a way to end suffering and still achieve the good effects which the fanatics imagine can only be be brought about by suffering.
.

True.

Or, why would an omnipotent deity (OD) allow suffering to begin with, why would an OD ‘need’ to ‘invent’ suffering at all, given an OD would never ‘need’ anything, if it were truly omnipotent and prescient.

 

[BreezeWood]

numan: The basic problem is as I have repeatedly said : a God of unlimited Power and Knowledge could always come up with a way to end suffering and still achieve the good effects which the fanatics imagine can only be be brought about by suffering.
.

C_Clayton_Jones: True.

Or, why would an omnipotent deity (OD) allow suffering to begin with, why would an OD &#8216;need&#8217; to &#8216;invent&#8217; suffering at all, given an OD would never &#8216;need&#8217; anything, if it were truly omnipotent and prescient.

are the other Fauna and Flora on Earth similar in the same protestations as Atheist ?

* The Atheist is just going to die so what difference does it make ? why do Atheist even think, for what reason ?

what meaning can "Evil" have for an Atheist - what can they be basing it on ?

 

[HUGGY]

Posts from Irish Ram and others of her ilk make me think of entering a tiny 10th floor walkup apartment full to the ceiling with old newspaers and receipts with barely any room to turn around let alone stretch. They have become victims of mental polution.

People like that commenting on the mind of an atheist is rediculous. Pull the timbers out of YOUR own eyes before pointing out the tiny splinter in my finger.

It would make more sense sending a reporter from Better Homes and Gardens up to your lair cluttered to the rafters with garbage for tips on "Good House Keeping".

Put away your bibles... They are self serving maunuals of conformity and compliance. You will never be able to think clearly or see clearly using that drivel as a lens to the world. The bible is the first attempt from your masters to develope Thorazine and apply it to the masses.

 

[numan]

'
An example of Edward Gibbon's elegant, tongue-in-cheek mockery from chapter 15 of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, daemons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church.

But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar, when, during the greatest part of a year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendour. This season of obscurity, which cannot surely be compared with the preternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age."
.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The animals are under a covenant with God, some of the details we are privy to and some not, but they are in God's capable hands for eternity. Unlike the cheeseburger in yours.
Nice that you are concerned about the poor animals, and yet millions of babies die in our clinics and not peep of condemnation.

Huggy:
Where did you get this garbage? First of all the first life forms didn't have a full helix. That assumption is rediculous. The first life forms were extremely simple. You have a very child-like view of science and a preclativity to absorb propaganda. Strangely your simplistic approach to building knowledge in your brain is not unlike the crude selections the first chemical bonds used to digest what they needed to survive.

Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo., begs to differ:

Many people evaluate nonhuman organisms according to human anatomy and physiology and mistakenly conclude that humans are the ultimate product, even goal, of evolution. That attitude probably stems from the tendency of humans to think anthropocentrically, but the scholarship of natural theology, which was prominent in 18th-and 19th-century England, codified it even before Lamarck defined biology in the modern sense. Unfortunately, anthropocentric thinking is at the root of many common misconceptions in biology.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully.

Sorry about the devolving human thing you've got going on now, or as Hawking describes it, "the external transmission phase":

In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly.....

That you still hold on to the belief that we started out simple and ended up complex, tells me you're still well behind the DNA eight ball. Man has become smart enough to know that even the smallest living single celled organism has DNA. And DNA is complex. The opposite of simple.
The record for the most nucleotides in a cell is held by the single-celled Amoeba Dubai at 670,000,000,000.

So, while Darwin didn't have to reconcile evolution with complex DNA to come up with his opinion, you must.

The eye is a good example of what Darwin referred to as giving him a cold shudder, "because it is an organ of extreme perfection".
e.g.
An eagle didn't evolve into it's amazing eyes. They were always amazing.
The eye of a fetus has to precisely align one million optic nerves from each eye, and meet the matching 2 million optics growing out of it's brain.

So as one put it, who didn't have the confidence in evolution that you do,

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree." ~ Charles Darwin 1861

I'll ignore your insults, just as you ignore the prophesy that you can't contradict, or work into to your theory of evolving, and apparently, devolving,(if your scientists are to be trusted).

You have the same problem with prophecy that Darwin had with the eye:

40 years after His death, the Roman armies razed the temple and the rest of Jerusalem just as Jesus prophesied.

Matthew 24
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, &#8220;Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.&#8221;

They had to move the stones to collect all of the gold that lined the temple and ended up melted down into the crevices of the stones.

 

[HUGGY]

The animals are under a covenant with God, some of the details we are privy to and some not, but they are in God's capable hands for eternity. Unlike the cheeseburger in yours.
Nice that you are concerned about the poor animals, and yet millions of babies die in our clinics and not peep of condemnation.

Huggy:
Where did you get this garbage? First of all the first life forms didn't have a full helix. That assumption is rediculous. The first life forms were extremely simple. You have a very child-like view of science and a preclativity to absorb propaganda. Strangely your simplistic approach to building knowledge in your brain is not unlike the crude selections the first chemical bonds used to digest what they needed to survive.

Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo., begs to differ:

Many people evaluate nonhuman organisms according to human anatomy and physiology and mistakenly conclude that humans are the ultimate product, even goal, of evolution. That attitude probably stems from the tendency of humans to think anthropocentrically, but the scholarship of natural theology, which was prominent in 18th-and 19th-century England, codified it even before Lamarck defined biology in the modern sense. Unfortunately, anthropocentric thinking is at the root of many common misconceptions in biology.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully.

Sorry about the devolving human thing you've got going on now, or as Hawking describes it, "the external transmission phase":

In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly.....

That you still hold on to the belief that we started out simple and ended up complex, tells me you're still well behind the DNA eight ball. Man has become smart enough to know that even the smallest living single celled organism has DNA. And DNA is complex. The opposite of simple.
The record for the most nucleotides in a cell is held by the single-celled Amoeba Dubai at 670,000,000,000.

So, while Darwin didn't have to reconcile evolution with complex DNA to come up with his opinion, you must.

The eye is a good example of what Darwin referred to as giving him a cold shudder, "because it is an organ of extreme perfection".
e.g.
An eagle didn't evolve into it's amazing eyes. They were always amazing.
The eye of a fetus has to precisely align one million optic nerves from each eye, and meet the matching 2 million optics growing out of it's brain.

So as one put it, who didn't have the confidence in evolution that you do,

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree." ~ Charles Darwin 1861

I'll ignore your insults, just as you ignore the prophesy that you can't contradict, or work into to your theory of evolving, and apparently, devolving,(if your scientists are to be trusted).

You have the same problem with prophecy that Darwin had with the eye:

40 years after His death, the Roman armies razed the temple and the rest of Jerusalem just as Jesus prophesied.

Matthew 24
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

They had to move the stones to collect all of the gold that lined the temple and ended up melted down into the crevices of the stones.

Are you really this stupid?

"Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully"

The resource is a moron and so are you for using his quote. What kind of an idiot would expect that most or even almost all species that have ever lived should have had an opportunity or wherewithall to adapt and survive? Why do you constantly bring such ignorant crap to this MB folded in amongst pointless nonproveable quotes from that comic book you cling so desperately to.

This thread is labled as something to do with atheists...which is untrue because the OP backtracked immediately and announces he is an agnostic. But YOU bring bible quotes to the discussion.

Check this out Sugar tits.. Most atheists have already read your bible, as I have, and found it laughable. You bible IS one of the main reasons why we reject christianity and it's previous carnation of the jewish religion. It's ALL crap. You quoting the bible makes me think you have marshmellow in your skull instead of gray matter.

So forget the bible quotes Toots. Nobody is listening. It's a non starter. It means NOTHING! Less than NOTHING because it is insulting!

 

[BreezeWood]

The animals are under a covenant with God, some of the details we are privy to and some not, but they are in God's capable hands for eternity. Unlike the cheeseburger in yours.
Nice that you are concerned about the poor animals, and yet millions of babies die in our clinics and not peep of condemnation.

"Nice that you are concerned about the poor animals, and yet millions of babies die in our clinics and not peep of condemnation".


perhaps because the "poor animals" are of the greater concern - the mad dash by the hatchling Terrapin against the odds of outwitting the Gulls to the Sea is an example of our explanation to your quire.



"some of the details we are privy to and some not, but they are in God's capable hands for eternity"

without your Bible would the Natural World be its replacement ... without the conditions ?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yeah Huggy, who would listen to the learned when we have you....................

Forbidden Archeology, by Michael Cremo coauthored with Richard L. Thompson:

Nevertheless, I am not unhappy that Human Devolution appeared after Forbidden Archeology rather than along with it. Before presenting an alternative to the Darwinian concept of human origins, it is reasonable to show that one is really necessary. I have therefore welcomed the chance to introduce to scientists and other scholars the evidence in Forbidden Archeology before moving on to systematically presenting an alternative. After hearing the Forbidden Archeology presentations, many ask, &#8220;If we did not evolve from the apes, then what alternative explanation do you propose?&#8221; To them, I reply, &#8220;Do you admit a new explanation is required? If not, I have more work to do in showing that one is required. And if you do admit that a new explanation is really required, then it is not just my responsibility to come up with a new explanation. It is also your responsibility. We should all be thinking about this. Of course, I have some ideas about what the explanation should be, but you should also.&#8221;

Then there's this:

Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Exciting research from the summer of 2012 described DNA variation in the protein coding regions of the human genome linked to population growth. One of the investigation's conclusions was that the human genome began to rapidly diversify not more than 5,000 years ago.1,2 This observation closely agrees with a biblical timeline of post-flood human diversification. Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis.3

Differences in human DNA can be characterized across populations and ethnic groups using a variety of techniques. One of the most informative genetic technologies in this regard is the analysis of rare DNA variation in the protein coding regions of the genome. Variability in these regions is less frequent than the more numerous genetic differences that occur in the non-coding regulatory regions. Researchers can statistically combine this information with demographic data derived from population growth across the world to generate time scales related to human genetic diversification.

What makes this type of research unique is that evolutionary scientists typically incorporate hypothetical deep time scales taken from the authority of paleontologists or other similar deep-time scenarios to calibrate models of genetic change over time. Demographics-based studies using observed world population dynamics do not rely on this bias and are therefore more accurate and realistic.

In a 2012 Science report, geneticists analyzed DNA sequences of 15,585 protein-coding gene regions in the human genome for 1,351 European Americans and 1,088 African Americans for rare DNA variation. This new study accessed rare coding variation in 15,336 genes from over 6,500 humans&#8212;almost three times the amount of data compared to the first study. A separate group of researchers performed the new study.

The Nature results convey a second spectacular confirmation of the amazingly biblical conclusions from the first study. These scientists confirmed that the human genome began to rapidly diversify not more than 5,000 years ago. In addition, they found significant levels of variation to be associated with degradation of the human genome, not forward evolutionary progress. This fits closely with research performed by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford who demonstrated through biologically realistic population genetic modeling that genomes actually devolve over time in a process called genetic entropy.
According to the Bible, the pre-flood world population was reduced to Noah's three sons and their wives, creating a genetic bottleneck from which all humans descended. Immediately following the global flood event, we would expect to see a rapid diversification continuing up to the present. According to Scripture, this began not more than 5,000 years ago. We would also expect the human genome to devolve or degrade as it accumulates irreversible genetic errors over time. Now, two secular research papers confirm these biblical predictions.
References:
Tomkins, J. 2012. Human DNA Variation Linked to Biblical Event Timeline. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org July 23, 2012, accessed December 31, 2012.
Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.
Fu, W, et al. Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature. Published online before print, July 13, 2012.
Keinan, A and A. Clark. 2012. Recent Explosive Human Population Growth Has Resulted in an Excess of Rare Genetic Variants. Science. 336 (6082): 740-743.
Sanford, J. C. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, 3rd ed. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
Dr. Tomkins is a Research Associate and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

And this is interesting, lol :

Sir Alfred Russel Wallace, cofounder with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Wallace wrote in his autobiography We ask our readers not for belief, but for doubt of their own infallibility on this question; we ask for inquiry and patient experiment before hastily concluding that we are, all of us, mere dupes and idiots as regards a subject to which we have devoted our best mental faculties and powers of observation for many years.&#8221;
For Wallace, all this had implications for human origins. In his book Contributions to a Theory of Natural Selection (1870, p. 359),
Wallace concluded that &#8220;a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal and vegetable forms.&#8221;

How about John Sanford:
Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin&#8211;Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.[1][2]
Inventions

Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4][5] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
Sanford has argued for devolution in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005, 2008).

I understand your anger. People don't like to be proven wrong, just like you, desperately clinging to Darwinism, but DNA threw your "simple to complex" theory right out the window.

This thread is called, challenge the atheist. What better challenge to the atheist than Bible prophesy?
Since you have already determined that man can not predict the future, but you can't discredit Bible prophesy, it is pretty clear that God can and does see the end from the beginning.

You won't go near prophecy because you have no evidence to the contrary. It is easier for you to lash out.
One can read anything, but understanding eludes you. You still cling to the pre DNA concept that one celled amoebas are simple in structure.

As for challenging the atheist:

Joel 2:32; Isa 28:14; Ezek 22:19. Israel will regain the city of Jerusalem.

Fulfilled 1967.

Who knew! lol

 

[The Irish Ram]

In a day when there weren't even 200 million people on the face of the earth, let alone one nation having an army of such magnitude, this 2,00 year old prediction should be ridiculous:

Rev. 9: 16
And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand [200 million] and I heard the number of them.

And yet:
Chairman Mao Zedong:

We have an army of two hundred million men.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Mk 13:20; Rev 6:8; Rev 9:18; Zech 14:8,12.
There would be weapons that could destroy the world. An incomprehensible prophesy in a day when weapons were spears and swords, don't you think?
Fulfilled

 

[numan]

'

Well, Ram, you have proved that there are plenty of other people who believe blithering nonsense.

But we already knew that, didn't we?
.

 

[numan]

40 years after His death, the Roman armies razed the temple and the rest of Jerusalem just as Jesus prophesied.

OR the so-called prophecy was written after the Temple was destroyed.

In your blindness and obsession, you can't conceive of even the simplest of alternative explanations, can you?
.