If you want to argue something like vertebrate eye design is poor and evidence against a creator, then you should also be honest and admit that good design is evidence for a creator.
God would be expected to do a good job of design, but nature can also be expected to often come up with very functional designs. So the existence of good design by itself is not an automatic atta-boy for God.
if you argue that non functionality is evidence against a Creator...then be honest and admit that functionality may be evidence for a creator.
I appreciate you including the qualifier “may be” before evidence for a creator. There is not a “may be” as to whether nature exists, we do not agree that God exists. If you insist God exists, then would you view some design flubs as incompetence on His part?
I see you didn't accept the challenge.
I presume this is in reference to your prior statement that:
Atheists like to make lists of things they call discrepancies, yet are unable to pick and defend even one single point that would make a difference to the Gospel.
I don’t know what part of the Bible is non-negotiable to your belief, and what is optional. If you want me to challenge some theological nicety – how many angels on the head of a pin – then indeed I will pass and simply observe religious factions battle each other from the sidelines.
But if you include items like demanding that passages in Genesis with scientific implications be taken exactly as written (age of the earth, validity of scientific laws, etc), then even there you are not just in opposition to 99% of the scientific world, but also to a huge portion of the religious world as well.
The creationist stance is basically just attack and denial – “science is wrong, science makes mistakes, science came from a Christian mindset, journals won’t accept our papers, etc.” Creationists are impotent at presenting and defending their ideas and supporting data within the world of secular science.
So in response to your “challenge”, if disputed areas of science qualify, I already invited you to revisit things like your silly “lost squadron” claim, and C-14 dating and calibration. Just in the last couple of posts when discussing Snelling’s meteorite isochron dating article, you have falsely claimed that he concluded scientifically that the earth is young.
And I see you didn’t accept the challenge of supplying “2 important specific advances in scientific knowledge that are clearly traceable to Christianity” to back your statement about “the contributions that Christianity has made to science”. Just hyperbole?
I didn't say ToE...I said evolutionism. … Evolutionism was largely responsible for increased racism in the world, and played a significant role in the holocaust.
I can accept that. You are attacking Social Darwinism, which is governed by the moral (or immoral choices) people make, but you are not thusly impugning Darwin’s biological theory that deals with the diversity of biological life. Since the word “evolutionism” pretty commonly refers to the ToE, honesty would recommend you make it clear when you are attacking Social Darwinism and not the ToE.
Returning to my statement about the age of the earth from a few posts back
Science many decades ago concluded that the earth is billions of years old…
And your first response to that:
Science concluded no such thing. Evolutionists believe that...
To which I presented Lord Kelvin as a highly qualified Christian, scientist, and non-evolutionist who indeed concluded the earth was old.
Your latest counter is
not all scientists believe in an old earth. All evolutionists do
It seems you are reduced to referring to those few scientists who are on the fringes of science, and turning a blind eye to the millions of evolutionists who are concurrently good Christians (and you are still being dismissive of Lord Kelvin’s opposition to your claim).
