Dr. Craig is a liar.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I actually meant to respond to your other similar post, but time got away from me, and it wasn't actually about evolution anyway (similar to here).   I do find this to be the best argument for evolution, because I think it is the main one, that tries to demonstrate common descent (rather than assuming it).   If you want to start another thread or message me, if you have better information available (better than that simplistic drawing).  I would be looking for more of the actual data, with similarities and discrepancies included (what are the difficulties).  Personally, I think that because common descent is assumed so much, that it isn't taught very well.  The data isn't organized and explained well.  I'm by no means an expert in biology so I need some help and explanation, and I realize that I may not understand everything.   But in my experience, someone who knows the subject well, should be able to explain their reasoning, and someone who doesn't know the subject well can assess it.

As I explained in my previous post, this isn't something I can easily show you unless you've taken the time to understand genetics: what it is, how it works, and why we know what we know.

By "common descent", we simply mean that we observe that DNA is handed down from parents to offspring, with certain modifications by well-understood mechanisms (among them are recombination, transpositions, and of course point mutations). The fact that certain sections (the inactive ones) tend to be highly preserved over many generations, due to the lack of Natural Selection "weeding out" different versions of the active genes as it does, we can use the handed-down inactive sections as "markers" to trace lines of descent.

It's that exact mechanism we use in court to determine paternity, identification of criminals, etc.

The "simplistic drawing" is nothing of the sort. It's a map of what can be seen with your own eyes, in a gel electrophoresis experiment, as I explained. Here's what a result it looks like in real life:



And how it's charted, which results in the "simplistic" drawings you saw, for easier viewing.


What you're essentially asking me to do (by provoking me with the "if you're really an expert" kind of statement) is to educate you on the entire field of genetics, and why it works the way it does. If you really, honestly want to know the details of why we know what we know about common descent, I suggest you poke around at the UC Berkeley bio department's website or the National Institutes of Health's PubMed publications, and others like them. They have many excellent articles on how it works and why. With all due respect, it's not my job to give you a college education.

I will happily sum up, if you like... but if you're going to call the layman's explanations "simplistic" and refuse to take my word (that's fine), then I'm going to point you to the complex answer, and recommend you put in the requisite amount of study to understand it for yourself.

Edit to Add: On the other hand, I know you're desperately seeking for signs of duplicity or dodgy answers from me, so you can protect your beliefs.*sigh* Fine. I'll link you to one article at the NIH which will help you see more about the subject of shared human-chimp ERVs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088204

[Pat Mustard]

[*]
I think it shows your fundamental misunderstanding of how science works...

[*]

Just having a little fun, with those who demand unreasonable evidence.

Unreasonable evidence? We haven't received a single iota of evidence of any kind yet.

You demand that we accept your assertion of god provided sans evidence, yet you constantly deride evolution, which is one of the best evidenced theories in science. Me thinks you haven't a fucking clue about what you are talking about.

[Time Traveler]

Seems like special pleading to say that god can create something out of nothing, as others have pointed out.  But, as I have asked (as have others), when did god go from being "timeless" to being "timely" (sorry if that is not the correct word); what caused god to change states?

If I could chime in.  I would still argue, that if you start with nothing on one side of the equation, that you will have nothing on the other side.  I think that the doctrine of "Ex Nihilo" which is derived from scripture, is stating that God created everything  from himself. That there was nothing outside of God, with which he was working.  

As to your second question, I would not say that God changed states, so I can't answer that particular question.

I'm glad you chimed in. You really cleared everything up. Well, except for just a few things...

Statement 1: God created everything  from himself.
Statement 2: I would not say that God changed states.

If your God never changed states, then how did he create everything? In other words, if God preexisted the universe, and then created the universe, how could he logically do this without changing states?

Your post brings to mind a few other questions...

Question 1: Where in scripture is "Ex Nihilo" explicitly stated or "derived"?

Question 2: On what basis do you assume Absolute Nothing ever existed before Something? We have evidence of things that exist (laws of physics, quantum vacuum states, theists on Atheist Forum sites, etc.), but where is your evidence that Absolute Nothing ever existed or could have existed prior to something?

Question 3: "God created everything  from himself. That there was nothing outside of God, with which he was working." Are you saying the natural physical universe was created out of the supernatural metaphysical being of God? If so, what is the ratio of supernatural metaphysical being to natural physical universe? In other words, how much of God's supernatural essence was spent in creating the universe? (I'm guessing three cups of supernatural metaphysical being equals one natural physical universe, but I'm no theist so I could be wrong.)

[SteveII]

What prevents god from doing so?  What constrains god within those logical boundaries,  if god is so constrained?  Perhaps you could elaborate upon this force or power that surrounds and limits your god?  That, whatever it is, sounds considerably more interesting and informative than this middle-manning "god" business, to me.

I believe logic, mathematics, and abstract objects (like numbers) are not physical objects and are not a result of the physical universe.  I am not a Platonist and do not think that they are real things that exist necessarily. However, where did they come from? Would they exist in all possible worlds? On theism, it is not logical that these things exist separate from God's existence. So I believe they are properly based in the mind/nature of God, which would give them concrete meaning and applicability. 

Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature. Even further, constructing a sentence that has logical impossibilities like a round square or married bachelor are just a grouping of contradictory words and not really a thing to consider. In the same way, can God count to infinity and lift that rock are not really coherent questions.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature.

Neither can I. Am I God?

[Jehanne]

What prevents god from doing so?  What constrains god within those logical boundaries,  if god is so constrained?  Perhaps you could elaborate upon this force or power that surrounds and limits your god?  That, whatever it is, sounds considerably more interesting and informative than this middle-manning "god" business, to me.

I believe logic, mathematics, and abstract objects (like numbers) are not physical objects and are not a result of the physical universe.  I am not a Platonist and do not think that they are real things that exist necessarily. However, where did they come from? Would they exist in all possible worlds? On theism, it is not logical that these things exist separate from God's existence. So I believe they are properly based in the mind/nature of God, which would give them concrete meaning and applicability. 

Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature. Even further, constructing a sentence that has logical impossibilities like a round square or married bachelor are just a grouping of contradictory words and not really a thing to consider. In the same way, can God count to infinity and lift that rock are not really coherent questions.

If the set of natural numbers is an actual infinite set, can god count them all?

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe logic, mathematics, and abstract objects (like numbers) are not physical objects and are not a result of the physical universe.  I am not a Platonist and do not think that they are real things that exist necessarily. However, where did they come from? Would they exist in all possible worlds? On theism, it is not logical that these things exist separate from God's existence. So I believe they are properly based in the mind/nature of God, which would give them concrete meaning and applicability. 

Based in the mind/nature of god, and yet somehow unbridgeable by the same god? This isn't actually the position of theism or "in theism", just your position. What rational justification is there for this claimed attribute? Can't we both agree that regardless of the existence of a god..logic, mathematics, and abstract objects exist? That seems, to me, to be a bare minimum level of agreement for any confidence that you and I live in the same world.

Related to the question why God cannot do logically impossible things, God would not be able to do things contrary to his nature. Even further, constructing a sentence that has logical impossibilities like a round square or married bachelor are just a grouping of contradictory words and not really a thing to consider. In the same way, can God count to infinity and lift that rock are not really coherent questions.

Why is it that god cannot do things contrary to it's nature?  What prevents that from happening?  Saying ""it wouldn't be able to" does not answer the question raised...which is -why- it cannot do these things, -why- it "wouldn't be able to". With this response you've merely restated the initial claim. I saw it the first time, I was hoping for an explanation. For example, how it is that logic constrains this god (which we both agree that it does, somehow). How did it come to pass that the author of the universe became subject to the rules of it's own creation?

[SteveII]

when I post, my content keeps disappearing...

[SteveII]

Again, because I have to state this emphatically so you don't go off trying to slay straw men, I am ONLY talking about what your timeless God supposedly did before the creation of the universe... not your God's imagined relationship to time after the creation.

You made me read a lot of material to understand the arguments. I find this conclusion from WLC's article on Time and Omnitemporaltiy to be a convincing senario. That do you think?

One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

But such a changeless, undifferentiated state looks suspiciously like a state of timelessness! It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timelessn...z48J4TiTa9

[GrandizerII]

Again, because I have to state this emphatically so you don't go off trying to slay straw men, I am ONLY talking about what your timeless God supposedly did before the creation of the universe... not your God's imagined relationship to time after the creation.

You made me read a lot of material to understand the arguments. I find this conclusion from WLC's article on Time and Omnitemporaltiy to be a convincing senario. That do you think?

One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

But such a changeless, undifferentiated state looks suspiciously like a state of timelessness! It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/timelessn...z48J4TiTa9

Enters implies time ...