Hey White, do you have a response to these?

You evidently have a different understanding of probabilities than I do.
If you have two possible outcomes of an event...........designer or accident.........it is mathematically impossible for the probability of either one being 100% or 0%............unless one outcome is physically impossible.

If you flip a coin there are only two possible outcomes so the probability of either outcome is 50%. I guarantee you the coin is not going to land and stand on edge nor is it going to land heads 100% of the time.

If something is possible..........it also has some potential probability. It may be small but it is not zero.

Overall my response is do your own work and post your own thoughts. Copy/paste only reinforces your own biases.

If you aren't willing to put in the time and effort to learn something, why would you expect others to do it for you ?


But I will address one of your questions from AFG..... There are no population 3 stars because they have been destroyed over time. We do have at least one population 2 star. The Methuselah star. Look it up

That’s my point, White. There is no possibility of the placenta not having a designer. And when an outcome is not possible the probability is 0%. So that’s why my answer is 0%.

Evolution is the process that God created to guide the design of the placenta.

Are you going to answer my question about where this doctrine of the strict literal Bible interpretation comes from? Did Jesus say that the scriptures should be interpreted literally? If not, then who did?

That is only your opinion concerning a "designer".


Also you are now trying to change the original issue. The terms "possibility" and "probability" are not interchangeable.

You first said .................."The probability of the placenta forming is 100% " but now you are saying................."There is no possibility."........... So you must believe that there is no "possible" way that organisms have adapted over time to facilitate reproduction by the development of a placenta ?

What about critters that reproduce by binary fission ? Is that the product of a designer too ? Or is that natural adaptation ? Or something else ?

How does that reinforce my biases? Both of us are bias towards our own side. You are bias in favor of evolution and I am bias in favor of Creation. Isn’t that to be expected in a debate?

I believe that binary fission is a product of a designer.

Regardless of the fact the information I posted is copied and pasted, what is your argument against it?

Sorry I haven’t responded to you yet.

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because Jesus took it literally. Whenever Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

Does this suffice?

I have given you plenty that supports my view of the things. I can look at the night sky and the things we see here on Earth. I can do the math, some of it anyway, I can understand the physics and the chemistry that has been worked out by people a lot smarter than I am. I can read the theories and see the observational data and the math that proves that data. Does it answer everything ? No. But it is making progress every year. Will we know all the answers in our lifetimes ? No,probably not but within a couple more centuries I believe we will.

To me, all of those things that we KNOW as fact........are a lot more believable than the writings of people 2000 years ago about things they neither saw nor understood. They had neither the abilities nor the equipment to investigate the thing they were writing about.

I am sure you've heard of Crater Lake in Oregon. Maybe you've even been there. You may know that it sits in a caldera of the ancient volcano, Mount Mazama. Mazama erupted and formed the caldera about 7700 years ago. ( I know that can't be if the Earth is only 6000 years old) and the snow and rain created the lake we see today.

At that time, there were people living near Mount Mazama , the ancestors of the Klamath people of northern CA and southern Oregon.

It may surprise you to learn that they have an oral history of that eruption. That history tells the tale of the god of the sky, SKELL doing battle with the god of the underworld..LLAO. That made sense to them as they knew nothing of vulcanism or plate tectonics. But it explained what happened and why......in their minds.

That may seem rather primitive or simplistic or naive to us today but it seems to me to make just as much sense as Genesis does to you

Context is everything, and I don't think it's controversial to state that the laws handed down to Moses to govern the Israelites were meant to be taken literally. The Mosaic laws are presented in the Bible as having been provided directly to Moses by God and are meant to be followed by the Israelites for their part of keeping their covenant with God.

In responding to Satan's temptations, Jesus expressed the wisdom of the scriptures. The Old Testament is part of our Bible and we are meant to read it and benefit from its wisdom and lessons. But Jesus wasn't quoting it as a science book and claiming that the earth is 6000 years old.

I'm not gonna weigh in on the topic at hand, as I honestly have more questions than answers at this point in time.

But, Husky mentioned that his reason for posting this was wanting to improve his debating skills, and on that I will comment.

I commend you, Husky, for wanting to improve your skills at debate, as honestly, they need a lot of improvement.

First of all, while most often talked about in written form, like on here, but also true even in speech, if you are repeating (or writing) the words of someone else you MUST cite your source. I know you're only 15, and are homeschooled, but I would hope that by this point your parents (or whoever is teaching you) would have introduced to you the importance of proper citations or references. See, when you write posts like the ones you re-quoted today above, without stating clearly that those are the ideas of someone else, it makes it look as though you are claiming those to be YOUR words or YOUR thoughts. And they're not. You're just repeating what someone else thought and said. In writing, doing this is known as plagiarism, and it can get you expelled from college. It's that serious. Additionally, it discredits you from the get-go. How can anyone believe someone that they've already caught lying? (Now, I know you didn't intentionally mean to lie, but using someone else's words as your own amounts to that). Now, white obviously realized that those were not your words, and figured out where they were from, but there are likely others on this very thread that DID believe those were your words... see how that's being untruthful?

That out of the way... the definition of debate. Merriam Webster's provides several definitions here. Let's consider a couple of those.

: a contention by words or arguments
: to turn over in one's mind : to think about (something, such as different options) in order to decide
: to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments

In my opinion, those definitions make it pretty clear that in order to be successful at debating, you must consider, and think about, the arguments made by those on the other side. Your replies on this thread make it pretty clear that you really are not doing so. Now, to consider and think about those other arguments does not mean that you have to agree with them, by any means. I don't agree with everything that anyone on this thread has said (not even Savell, ) But I've thought about them all. And if I was interested in being better at debating someone that held the opposing viewpoint, I would be more than just thinking about them, I would be researching them. As well as doing a lot more scientific research into YOUR beliefs.

Going to pick on white again here for a minute, but I want to use as an example the post he made where he directed you to several video series, and a book, as well as introducing a lot of information that may or may not have been familiar to you. He gave you links, or advice on where to find the material he recommended, as well as recommending you do some of your own research. In a debate, you would have done some research, even if it was just quick research, and came back with a rebuttal to the facts he stated, supported by referenced facts of your own. Or, at the very least, have come back with research-supported questions. What you did, was ask questions that appeared to come from your own mind, without any facts or evidence to support why you believe your questions were relevant to his statements. You later said you were doing a lot of research in order to reply to his statements.

But it seems as if whenever someone (not just white -- could just as easily be waggler, NorthwesternYote, Foxpaw or whoever) offers you factual information, you just want to state that they are wrong because the Bible says so. And Husky, that's not debate. That's wanting to argue.

Now, you have asked a lot of questions, too, and I view that as a good thing, and enjoyed reading the replies that you got to the questions. Unlike you, however, I entertained the idea that at least some of those answers could have at least a basis in truth. Husky, for the most part, you can do that without losing your faith. If someone says that, for example, matter was formed by a collision of photons, your internal reply to that should be "can that be true?" not "that is not true." See what I'm saying? For that matter, maybe God is what caused those photons to collide and form matter in the first place.

This has been a very interesting discussion, but it's definitely been more discussion than debate. You have been given a lot of information by a lot of different people on here that should give you plenty to think about and research, not just for the next few days but for the next few decades.

In summary, to improve your debating skills: be sure to differentiate between your thoughts and the thoughts of others, be prepared to back up your statements with researched factual information, if you can't do that, state that it is merely your opinion. If someone says something you believe is untrue, don't state such unless you have factual information that can cast doubt on their statement. Ask questions, but have reasons for asking them. For example, say: "If science has proven that XYZ is true, than how is it possible for ABC to happen/exist/whatever.

I'm glad you want to improve your debating skills. Not sure what is available in your area, but maybe there is a debate club or something offered through one of the local schools you could join, even if not a member there?

Thank you for the advice Angela. You have brought to my attention some things I need to work on.

As to everyone else, those statements that I posted were not my ideas or words. They were from Answers in Genesis. I have been taught how to cite my sources, but neglected to so in this case. I apologize for using someone else’s words as my own without saying so.

If you all could put a pause on this debate for a few days while do A LOT more research and study on this topic, I’ll try to come back with a better understanding of what is being said. Thank you everyone!

Parrots are annoying. A burglar breaks in to a nice house in the ritzy part of town. After going thru a window the burglar hears a voice "Jesus sees you". Again he hears "Jesus sees you". Then he sees it is coming from a parrot, he tells him"Your just a parrot" what do you know? Then out of the corner of his eye he notices in the dark corner a set of glaring eyes. Those eyes just happened to belong to a doberman named "Jesus".

Question: Are we really suppose to know? Question #2 Will we in the end?

Alright, let’s try this again!

You previously mentioned C14 dating right, White? If so, how can scientists know what the starting amount of carbon was in each specimen they study? In order to date something accidentally they would need to know the starting amount of carbon so they can determine how much of it had decayed.