₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
1. Evolution can be observed in real time.

Has this not happened already? How does it become "certifiable scientific fact" without having being observed?

LordReed:
What moved life from single cell to multicell could have been the same need to self preserve.

Evolution is mindless and undirected is it not? To self preserve via adaptation to stimuli, and surely preserve is the opposite of evolve?

LordReed:
We could be affecting evolutionary trends with our actions right now.

Per above, would that qualify as "evolution"? Sounds more like creation, if only in an additive sense.

Just wanted to understand that's all.


Cheers
TV

TV01:
Has this not happened already? How does it become "certifiable scientific fact" without having being observed?

This is the first time I am hearing of it being observed in real time, all other observations have been of past occurrences.

Evolution is mindless and undirected is it not? To self preserve via adaptation to stimuli, and surely preserve is the opposite of evolve?

Nope. People tend to say adaptation simply because they are uncomfortable with the implications of evolution but forget that adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. In other words evolution is the result of many adaptations.

Per above, would that qualify as "evolution"? Sounds more like creation, if only in an additive sense.

No. This is gradual changes over many generations not a sudden instantiation.

Just wanted to understand that's all.

That's quite alright.

Cheers

Cheers.

This thread reminds me of something in Deuteronomy:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deuteronomy 13:1-4 NIV1984

This sort of thing has caused very strong Christian apologists that I know to stumble. The seven-year Tribulation which is not far now will have a similar effect on many believers who don't know the Bible. In fact, the Bible prophesies the apostasy of a full third of all true believers as that time.

Consider, for example, that one of the plagues that will be brought upon the earth will be the creation of an entirely new species of creatures that might even lead people to thinking more of evolution. The creatures here are the locusts with stings like scorpions and faces like men and hair like women created in "the blink of an eye" at the fifth trumpet to torment unbelievers. The very appearance of those locusts might very well lead more people determined to reject the Truth to believe more firmly in the ridiculous idea of evolution.

Suffice to say that God has both the right and ability to do anything He pleases with His creation. In the end, we cannot hope to fully understand the works of His Hands (Ecclesiastes 8:17).

Ihedinobi3:
This thread reminds me of something in Deuteronomy:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deuteronomy 13:1-4 NIV1984

This sort of thing has caused very strong Christian apologists that I know to stumble. The seven-year Tribulation which is not far now will have a similar effect on many believers who don't know the Bible. In fact, the Bible prophesies the apostasy of a full third of all true believers as that time.

Consider, for example, that one of the plagues that will be brought upon the earth will be the creation of an entirely new species of creatures that might even lead people to thinking more of evolution. The creatures here are the locusts with stings like scorpions and faces like men and hair like women created in "the blink of an eye" at the fifth trumpet to torment unbelievers. The very appearance of those locusts might very well lead more people determined to reject the Truth to believe more firmly in the ridiculous idea of evolution.

Suffice to say that God has both the right and ability to do anything He pleases with His creation. In the end, we cannot hope to fully understand the works of His Hands (Ecclesiastes 8:17).

LoL so the god creates creatures that make us think evolution is true but its our fault? LMFAO!

LordReed:
LoL so the god creates creatures that make us think evolution is true but its our fault? LMFAO!

Obviously, it doesn't MAKE us think anything like that since I don't think that at all. It is you who do. And you do because it suits you to hold the opinion of God that you do.

I don't pretend to know why He does everything that He does. I take very plenty on trust because He is trustworthy. You, on the other hand, think you know enough to call things as you please. So, it is evolution because it cannot be God doing something utterly mysterious. That is YOUR problem, not mine. Or His, for that matter.

Ihedinobi3:
Obviously, it doesn't MAKE us think anything like that since I don't think that at all. It is you who do. And you do because it suits you to hold the opinion of God that you do.

I don't pretend to know why He does everything that He does. I take very plenty on trust because He is trustworthy. You, on the other hand, think you know enough to call things as you please. So, it is evolution because it cannot be God doing something utterly mysterious. That is YOUR problem, not mine. Or His, for that matter.

I call thinks as see them. No evidence for your god, when there is I will also call it as it is.

As for you fantasy creatures you were the one who said we would call it an evidence of evolution, if your god is the one providing it, why is it our fault? Why is your god hell bent on providing ammunition for deception if that is what it is? Your funny god doesn't provide clarity instead it blames its creatures for its own faults. What a poor excuse for a god.

LordReed:
I call thinks as see them. No evidence for your god, when there is I will also call it as it is.

As for you fantasy creatures you were the one who said we would call it an evidence of evolution, if your god is the one providing it, why is it our fault? Why is your god hell bent on providing ammunition for deception if that is what it is? Your funny god doesn't provide clarity instead it blames its creatures for its own faults. What a poor excuse for a god.

Maybe you do, but everyone sees things the way they prefer to. If honesty is your strong suit, then you will see things as they truly are and call them that way. But anyone can pretend to themselves and perhaps to other people willing to be hoodwinked that they are honest. Actually being honest is a fact that has nothing to do with other people's opinions of you or of yours about yourself: if you are honest, then you are honest. Period.

I don't see how the way you call things is God's fault. If God were to cause a microorganism to produce remarkably different offspring, for me who believes what He says in the Bible, that is Him doing something mysterious that I look forward to understanding at the Resurrection; but for you who are opposed to Him no matter what, it is a deliberate act to deceive you into unbelief. The same action by the same God and two opposite reactions. That only means one thing: our reactions are variable.

God is not at all responsible to you to act in any given way. Rather, you are responsible to submit to Him since you owe Him your very existence. But you have also been given a right to rebel against Him if you prefer. You are free to consider anything a good enough excuse to do so. But you are not free to choose what consequences may follow your choices.

Ihedinobi3:
Maybe you do, but everyone sees things the way they prefer to. If honesty is your strong suit, then you will see things as they truly are and call them that way. But anyone can pretend to themselves and perhaps to other people willing to be hoodwinked that they are honest. Actually being honest is a fact that has nothing to do with other people's opinions of you or of yours about yourself: if you are honest, then you are honest. Period.

I don't see how the way you call things is God's fault. If God were to cause a microorganism to produce remarkably different offspring, for me who believes what He says in the Bible, that is Him doing something mysterious that I look forward to understanding at the Resurrection; but for you who are opposed to Him no matter what, it is a deliberate act to deceive you into unbelief. The same action by the same God and two opposite reactions. That only means one thing: our reactions are variable.

God is not at all responsible to you to act in any given way. Rather, you are responsible to submit to Him since you owe Him your very existence. But you have also been given a right to rebel against Him if you prefer. You are free to consider anything a good enough excuse to do so. But you are not free to choose what consequences may follow your choices.

So the god says go ahead do anything you like then gets angry because it refused to show up and I decided not to believe? How is it my fault? Your god is just a sum of irreconcilable contradictions and the more you try to whitewash its supposed behaviour and characteristics, the more glaring it is that it a put up job.

LordReed:
This is the first time I am hearing of it being observed in real time, all other observations have been of past occurrences.

This sounds contradictory and for a number of reasons;

1. How is a "past occurrence" observed?

2. If evolution is a "certifiable scientific fact", how does this have any real implications, let alone staggering ones?

3. This only has any implications if the interpretation of what is actually occurring is correct, and not because it's derived from an a priori bias towards the notion of evolution and every effort to proving it true..

LordReed:
Nope. People tend to say adaptation simply because they are uncomfortable with the implications of evolution but forget that adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. In other words evolution is the result of many adaptations.

Adaptation is only assumed to be mechanism of evolution and will remain an assumption until evolution is proven. When in fact, what we can see and, what we observe in "real time", is that adaptation is a mechanism in it's own right.

I'm currently undertaking a 100 push-up challenge. within 3 days I felt like I'd had chest implants, within 4, increased vascularity was evident. That's adaptation. It just ensures fitness for purpose and hence survival. I'm not changing into another creature. I'm still a TV, just buffer .

LordReed:
No. This is gradual changes over many generations not a sudden instantiation.

Which has never been shown to give rise to a different kind of creature, only variation within the kind. Not only is the notion of "observed past occurrences" bordering on the absurd, there is no supporting evidence to lend it the slightest credence.

You also mentioned adaptation as the mechanism for evolution. I'd always thought it was attributed to random mutation, which in turn was as it sounds "undirected". Are you saying it is directed or by design via adaptation?

Push up time jor. Let's see if I can push that PB. I'm so hot right now, I guess I could be considered another kind .


Cheers
TV

^{Revelation 4:11 - “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.”}

LordReed:
So the god says go ahead do anything you like then gets angry because it refused to show up and I decided not to believe? How is it my fault? Your god is just a sum of irreconcilable contradictions and the more you try to whitewash its supposed behaviour and characteristics, the more glaring it is that it a put up job.

I couldn't care less what you think about God or what you think I am doing and what you think the results are. Your opinions are your problem.

As for what God did, you just made up a fiction of your own...again (like atheists do all the time). What I said is that you have a right to submit to God or rebel against Him.

In human language, what that means is that God has something He wants you to do but He is not going to make you do it. You are free to disobey Him but not without consequence.

The consequence is a deterrent. It is meant to encourage you to avoid the choice to rebel and submit to God. But you can still choose to ignore the consequence and do as you please.

If you do rebel, it is entirely your fault that you suffer for it, not God's.

Ihedinobi3:
I couldn't care less what you think about God or what you think I am doing and what you think the results are. Your opinions are your problem.

As for what God did, you just made up a fiction of your own...again (like atheists do all the time). What I said is that you have a right to submit to God or rebel against Him.

In human language, what that means is that God has something He wants you to do but He is not going to make you do it. You are free to disobey Him but not without consequence.

The consequence is a deterrent. It is meant to encourage you to avoid the choice to rebel and submit to God. But you can still choose to ignore the consequence and do as you please.

If you do rebel, it is entirely your fault that you suffer for it, not God's.

What fiction did I make up? If there is any fiction it is of a god and its actions that you so cleverly tell.

TV01:
This sounds contradictory and for a number of reasons;

No contradiction at all

1. How is a "past occurrence" observed?

When records or evidence exists, much like the review of security camera footage or the reconstruction of a crime scene from bits of evidence.

2. If evolution is a "certifiable scientific fact", how does this have any real implications, let alone staggering ones?

New scientific information always pushes the paradigm. The discovery of quantum mechanics changed the way we think about subatomic particles.

3. This only has any implications if the interpretation of what is actually occurring is correct, and not because it's derived from an a priori bias towards the notion of evolution and every effort to proving it true.

What other way do you interpret a single cell organism morphing into a multicellular one?

Adaptation is only assumed to be mechanism of evolution and will remain an assumption until evolution is proven. When in fact, what we can see and, what we observe in "real time", is that adaptation is a mechanism in it's own right.

I'm currently undertaking a 100 push-up challenge. within 3 days I felt like I'd had chest implants, within 4, increased vascularity was evident. That's adaptation. It just ensures fitness for purpose and hence survival. I'm not changing into another creature. I'm still a TV, just buffer .

Are you ignoring the time scales and generational cycles? This experiment observed over 750 generational cycles, in human terms that will be a time scale of over 30,000 years. Meanwhile general evolutionary timescales are in the millions of years. How are you expecting one organism to evolve in 3 days?

Which has never been shown to give rise to a different kind of creature, only variation within the kind. Not only is the notion of "observed past occurrences" bordering on the absurd, there is no supporting evidence to lend it the slightest credence.

You also mentioned adaptation as the mechanism for evolution. I'd always thought it was attributed to random mutation, which in turn was as it sounds "undirected". Are you saying it is directed or by design via adaptation?

What is the meaning of kind? Evolutionary theory does not speak of kinds.

Evolution has several mechanisms eg. Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection. It is all these processes and their outcomes that is collectively known as evolution.

Cheers

Cheers

LordReed:
What fiction did I make up? If there is any fiction it is of a god and its actions that you so cleverly tell.

This one:

"...the god says go ahead do anything you like then gets angry because it refused to show up and I decided not to believe."

You made that up all on your own as you do with pretty much all your other accusations of God. So, the worker of fiction here is you.

LordReed:
When records or evidence exists, much like the review of security camera footage or the reconstruction of a crime scene from bits of evidence.

Please, what "records" or "evidence" exists that clearly demonstrates living creatures changing from one kind to another i.e. fish to reptiles or reptiles to birds, or vice-versa. Or any other example.

LordReed:
New scientific information always pushes the paradigm. The discovery of quantum mechanics changed the way we think about subatomic particles.

New information does not change facts or the truth. If evolution is "certifiable scientific fact", the experiment in view would not have staggering implications. Especially since in and of itself it is not evidence of evolution.

If a single cell or whole animal is split in to 2 (or cloned even) , it does not mean it is predisposed to morphing into an entirely different creature or, will do so under the right conditions.

What we know is that life is essentially a code. Life is always produced within the boundaries of that code. And any variation between kinds of animals clearly shows that. Dogs are a good example.

For a creature to morph into a different kind, it would have to acquire new code. There is no known natural mechanism for that to take place. Not in 3 days, not in 30,000 years.

What we have clear evidence of is that animals only produce after their own kind with variation limited as noted. Indeed, not only is new code never acquired, it is more likely that code/variability is lost through successive generations amongst populations.

So far example, whilst a Yoruba and Chinese couple will produce viable offspring, a Yoruba couple will never produce a Chinese looking offspring. Neither will a Chinese couple produce a Yoruba looking offspring. Variability diminishes, it does not increase.

LordReed:
What other way do you interpret a single cell organism morphing into a multicellular one?

One should always interpret what is observed on its own merits, not in light of some pre-conceived notion.

LordReed:
Are you ignoring the time scales and generational cycles? This experiment observed over 750 generational cycles, in human terms that will be a time scale of over 30,000 years. Meanwhile general evolutionary timescales are in the millions of years. How are you expecting one organism to evolve in 3 days?

And where is the evidence to show living creatures "morphing" into other kinds of creature over millions of years?

LordReed:
What is the meaning of kind? Evolutionary theory does not speak of kinds.

Fish to reptiles as mentioned above would be an example

LordReed:
Evolution has several mechanisms eg. Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection. It is all these processes and their outcomes that is collectively known as evolution.

Several processes have been presumed to drive "evolution", but all of the process noted happen within animals of the same kind and drive variation within those kinds. They do not lead to animals changing into different kinds

A single cell "morphing" into 2 cells - if that is what happened without intervention - is not morphing into a different kind of cell. That would be like saying because I split me tenner into 2 fives, it could morph into gold bullion or shares in First Bank.


Danke!
TV

Ihedinobi3:
This one:

"...the god says go ahead do anything you like then gets angry because it refused to show up and I decided not to believe."

You made that up all on your own as you do with pretty much all your other accusations of God. So, the worker of fiction here is you.

I thought you said I have free will from the god? Does free will not mean I can do anything I want? How is it now fiction?

TV01:
Please, what "records" or "evidence" exists that clearly demonstrates living creatures changing from one kind to another i.e. fish to reptiles or reptiles to birds, or vice-versa. Or any other example.


New information does not change facts or the truth. If evolution is "certifiable scientific fact", the experiment in view would not have staggering implications. Especially since in and of itself it is not evidence of evolution.

If a single cell or whole animal is split in to 2 (or cloned even) , it does not mean it is predisposed to morphing into an entirely different creature or, will do so under the right conditions.

What we know is that life is essentially a code. Life is always produced within the boundaries of that code. And any variation between kinds of animals clearly shows that. Dogs are a good example.

For a creature to morph into a different kind, it would have to acquire new code. There is no known natural mechanism for that to take place. Not in 3 days, not in 30,000 years.

What we have clear evidence of is that animals only produce after their own kind with variation limited as noted. Indeed, not only is new code never acquired, it is more likely that code/variability is lost through successive generations amongst populations.

So far example, whilst a Yoruba and Chinese couple will produce viable offspring, a Yoruba couple will never produce a Chinese looking offspring. Neither will a Chinese couple produce a Yoruba looking offspring. Variability diminishes, it does not increase.


One should always interpret what is observed on its own merits, not in light of some pre-conceived notion.


And where is the evidence to show living creatures "morphing" into other kinds of creature over millions of years?


Fish to reptiles as mentioned above would be an example


Several processes have been presumed to drive "evolution", but all of the process noted happen within animals of the same kind and drive variation within those kinds. They do not lead to animals changing into different kinds

A single cell "morphing" into 2 cells - if that is what happened without intervention - is not morphing into a different kind of cell. That would be like saying because I split me tenner into 2 fives, it could morph into gold bullion or shares in First Bank.


Danke!
TV

Before we go on kindly provide the definition of kind as you are using it.

LordReed:
I thought you said I have free will from the god? Does free will not mean I can do anything I want? How is it now fiction?

Perhaps that is what you say it means. But is that what I said? Fiction is when you make things up.

LordReed:
Before we go on kindly provide the definition of kind as you are using it.

At two basic levels - kinds at say the level of fish, reptiles or birds. At a secondary level, say kinds of dogs. Quite simple and, as I've hopefully used consistently in my responses. Happy for you to use any taxonomy you choose. Just that it be clearly defined.

And, my point was that life is transmitted code. That is why kinds produce after their own. There is variability and a measure of adaptive capability within this code, but no known mechanism whereby additional code can be incorporated that can lead to it "morphing" into a totally different kind. No matter the degree of variability or adaptation, or how long elapses.

Further, the fact that it is code, suggests the presence of a Code Writer. Not to mention information, and how that is created, transmitted, stored, retrieved, read and disseminated.



Cheers
TV

Ihedinobi3:
Perhaps that is what you say it means. But is that what I said? Fiction is when you make things up.

Can you be clear? What did I make up exactly? Did you or did you not say that free will is from god?

LordReed:
Can you be clear? What did I make up exactly? Did you or did you not say that free will is from god?

I'm not wasting my time repeating myself ad infinitum. Refer to my earlier posts.

Ihedinobi3:
I'm not wasting my time repeating myself ad infinitum. Refer to my earlier posts.

Because you are not clear. You said the god gave free will, I said I have the freedom to do whatever I want then you say I made a a piece of fiction. Since when did free will not mean freedom? What this fiction is you can't say it clearly. Its not my problem if you refuse to clarify your statements when asked.

LordReed:
Because you are not clear. You said the god gave free will, I said I have the freedom to do whatever I want then you say I made a a piece of fiction. Since when did free will not mean freedom? What this fiction is you can't say it clearly. Its not my problem if you refuse to clarify your statements when asked.

I said it clearly alright. I'm just not interested in saying it yet again. My statements are clear enough for those who actually want to hear what I am saying. Can't be bothered to say what you want when it is not the Truth.

Ihedinobi3:
I said it clearly alright. I'm just not interested in saying it yet again. My statements are clear enough for those who actually want to hear what I am saying. Can't be bothered to say what you want when it is not the Truth.

You:

Ihedinobi3:
you make the same straw man that LordReed saw fit to make. That may be why you failed to see that he made a straw man. Free will is not the ability to do whatever you please with or without consequence. It is the ability to choose between just two options:

1. Submit to God's Authority

2. Rebel against God's Authority..

That is all.

Implying all actions will fall into these 2 catergories; those that support submission to the god and those that support rebellion against the god. There is no third option. You are free to choose anything in the ambit of these 2 catergories. Tell me how this is different from what I said?

TV01:
At two basic levels - kinds at say the level of fish, reptiles or birds. At a secondary level, say kinds of dogs. Quite simple and, as I've hopefully used consistently in my responses. Happy for you to use any taxonomy you choose. Just that it be clearly defined.

And, my point was that life is transmitted code. That is why kinds produce after their own. There is variability and a measure of adaptive capability within this code, but no known mechanism whereby additional code can be incorporated that can lead to it "morphing" into a totally different kind. No matter the degree of variability or adaptation, or how long elapses.

Further, the fact that it is code, suggests the presence of a Code Writer. Not to mention information, and how that is created, transmitted, stored, retrieved, read and disseminated.

Very good. This exposed the very misunderstanding of what the evolutionary theory deduces I suspected you were relying on. Your conception of evolution is akin to viewing the changes as a ladder whereby each step is a discrete change like a reptile morphing or giving birth to a bird but this is not what evolutionary theory observes. Evolutionary theory envisions the changes like the branching of a tree whereby species branch off to give rise to new species in a consequential series of changes over a long period of time rather than in discrete leaps. This answers the question of why there is no evidence of a leap from reptile to bird because the long chain of changes are each small but cumulative rather than discrete and sudden. We can also envision it the way language also evolves. The english language changed from and had input from many languages, we did not have a german or celtic speaking mother give birth to an english speaking baby.

Cheers

Cheers

LordReed:
You:



Implying all actions will fall into these 2 catergories; those that support submission to the god and those that support rebellion against the god. There is no third option. You are free to choose anything in the ambit of these 2 catergories. Tell me how this is different from what I said?

You are exactly right that there is no third option. Therefore you were wrong before that God says that you can do anything you want.

God commands that you submit to Him. That is His command. It is not that you should do as you please.

But He also gave you the ability to willingly obey Him. That means that His Command does not compel you to act in a way that you don't want to. You must willingly choose to obey Him. Otherwise you can disobey Him and face the consequences attached.

Do you see the difference yet between what you said and what I said?

Ihedinobi3:
You are exactly right that there is no third option. Therefore you were wrong before that God says that you can do anything you want.

God commands that you submit to Him. That is His command. It is not that you should do as you please.

But He also gave you the ability to willingly obey Him. That means that His Command does not compel you to act in a way that you don't want to. You must willingly choose to obey Him. Otherwise you can disobey Him and face the consequences attached.

Do you see the difference yet between what you said and what I said?

If the god is commanding then there is no free will.

LordReed:
If the god is commanding then there is no free will.

But of course. If LordReed decides that such reasoning is logical, it must be.

LordReed:
Very good. This exposed the very misunderstanding of what the evolutionary theory deduces I suspected you were relying on.

I don't so much misunderstand TOE, as believe it isn't actually possible - no matter how explained. Neither is it evidenced, no matter how insisted. As for describing it as a deduction, I don't believe it is an honest one, based on the available evidence, or the possibility based on how we understand the code to work.

LordReed:
Your conception of evolution is akin to viewing the changes as a ladder whereby each step is a discrete change like a reptile morphing or giving birth to a bird but this is not what evolutionary theory observes.

My conception of TOE is in a sense by the by, my desire here was to hear a credible defence of the position.

Having said that, my grasp of TOE was never as sketchy as to suggest one kind can give birth to another. After all, if the timescales postulated are collapsed, what is TOE actually saying?

TOE deduces that all life originated form a single point and, over time, different genus or kinds of creatures morph into others. My point being that no matter how much time, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection or adaptation, no creature morphs into another kind.

LordReed:
Evolutionary theory envisions the changes like the branching of a tree whereby species branch off to give rise to new species in a consequential series of changes over a long period of time rather than in discrete leaps.

Species, or, variations of a kind is fine. Evidenced. But they remain the same kind - I cited dogs as an example here.

But changing into a new type, genus or kind cannot happen, as the code has limits to it's variability. And, over time variability is lost, not gained, such that morphing into something entirely different is possible - no matter how much time that elapses, or the number of changes that take place.

LordReed:
This answers the question of why there is no evidence of a leap from reptile to bird because the long chain of changes are each small but cumulative rather than discrete and sudden.

Earlier, you stated the below...

LordReed:
When records or evidence exists, much like the review of security camera footage or the reconstruction of a crime scene from bits of evidence.

...which directly contradicts your statement above. Hence the excitement generated by the OP. So what evidence is there, other than mere deduction?

LordReed:
We can also envision it the way language also evolves. The english language changed from and had input from many languages, we did not have a german or celtic speaking mother give birth to an english speaking baby.

I'm not clear how this speaks to the subject at hand. The "evolution" of language, in most instances, is clearly evidenced and documented, clear lines can be drawn.

As for the birth point, mothers, of any ethnicity or background, couple with fathers of any ethnicity and background and, give birth to children, bar any unfortunate circumstances, with the power of speech, who can apprehend any language. Speaking, I would suggest, more to my point about variation within a core commonality (kind, genus).


Best
TV

^{Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvellous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.}

Ihedinobi3:
But of course. If LordReed decides that such reasoning is logical, it must be.

But a god who commands then gives you the freedom to do the exact opposite is logical to you. Like you know of any system that works that way aside from this god business? The army? Any Fortune 500 corporation/company perhaps? A nation?

Johnydon22 please come and help me evaluate this logic.

LordReed:
But a god who commands then gives you the freedom to do the exact opposite is logical to you. Like you know of any system that works that way aside from this god business? The army? Any Fortune 500 corporation/company perhaps? A nation?

Johnydon22 please come and help me evaluate this logic.

It's a typical eating your cake and having it.

Like; Buy this shoe, it's free but you have to pay $200 for the shoe lace but the shoe is free.

God's love is unconditional but he hates a sinner

Salvation is free but you must believe in God and do some other stuffs while at it.

The logic train is contradictory.

If everything we do is predetermined by God, then we cannot possible have free will since we can't choose otherwise.

It's either God determines or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Apparently he thinks he can.

LordReed:
But a god who commands then gives you the freedom to do the exact opposite is logical to you. Like you know of any system that works that way aside from this god business? The army? Any Fortune 500 corporation/company perhaps? A nation?

Johnydon22 please come and help me evaluate this logic.

When it comes to free will, my observation is that antichrists lose their minds and plunge deep into insanity. What I mean is, the very obvious absurdities you present as rebuttals seem to actually be believed by you.

How on earth does a command negate the ability to disobey it?

In the army, soldiers are courtmartialed for disobeying orders.

In business, people are fired for disobeying directives.

In nations, people pay fines, do community service, serve prison time and get executed for breaking laws.

In none of these examples do you find the existence of commands or their equivalent negating a choice to obey or disobey.

The same is exactly true of God. The whole point of free will is to test each moral creature to establish whether they are willing to submit to God's Authority or not. Therefore, it only makes sense that God would command and we have the ability to disobey Him. If we do, it only means that we don't deserve to be in His Family.

But I don't expect any of this to register with you.

Ihedinobi3:
When it comes to free will, my observation is that antichrists lose their minds and plunge deep into insanity. What I mean is, the very obvious absurdities you present as rebuttals seem to actually be believed by you.

How on earth does a command negate the ability to disobey it?

In the army, soldiers are courtmartialed for disobeying orders.

In business, people are fired for disobeying directives.

In nations, people pay fines, do community service, serve prison time and get executed for breaking laws.

In none of these examples do you find the existence of commands or their equivalent negating a choice to obey or disobey.

The same is exactly true of God. The whole point of free will is to test each moral creature to establish whether they are willing to submit to God's Authority or not. Therefore, it only makes sense that God would command and we have the ability to disobey Him. If we do, it only means that we don't deserve to be in His Family.

But I don't expect any of this to register with you.

They don't have the freedom to disobey which is why there are punishments. Freedoms do not earn you punishments.

EDIT: The person with the absurdities is the person who believes in a magic sky daddy not the person giving examples from reality.