But what about before that?

"My paragraph about the Big Bang is a summary of what is currently known. The information is in all libraries, encyclopedias, reference books, etc."A not-so-minor correction : not "known" but hypothesized."If someone is unfamiliar with the information, as seems to be the case here, and wants to dispute it I'll gladly support everything I said. It hasn't been disputed yet."Quite familiar with the information, thank you.The infiniteness of God is equally stated/discussed in many libraries, volumes, references, etc. If someone is unfamiliar with this information, as seems to be the case here..."In general, one presents one's point of view until some part or parts of it are challenged, at which point you begin defending and elaborating according to the nature of the challenge.

​

In the case of the thread you're talking about, Was God Designed?, you long ago passed the point of having presented your point of view. Your viewpoint is being disputed by John, PaulK, Peter and holmes, you've made about eight posts in the thread, and by this point the rebuttals should go beyond repetition of the "flavor of ambition" arguments and "God is infinite" assertions. You could point out how the arguments of others are flawed or unsupported, and you could offer supporting evidence for your own perspective.

​

The God statement by itself would not have raised my concerns. It was that it was combined with a number of other worrisome tactics, such as a bare assertion that your opponent was wrong with no supporting argument or evidence, a bare assertion that your opponent wasn't objective, a bare assertion that your opponent isn't aware/familiar with ID, an issue avoidance statement of "what's to be gained by examining" your assertion, and so forth."Seems fair & reasonable enough. I'll file your response for future reference. Thanks!In Christ,
Joralex

Here's some more things to keep in mind, not just for you, but for everyone.This board provides a venue for discussion and debate between evolutionists and Creationists. The discussion is moderated in order to keep discussion from becoming unproductive or stalemated. There are four moderators at this time, two evolutionist and two Creationist.The Forum Guidelines are a general outline for member conduct, but in keeping it to a readable length it is necessarily incomplete. A complete list of all the ways in which debate can go bad would be much too long, and each month I see something new.I occasionally add clarifying posts like this to ask that people follow the spirit of the guidelines in addition to just the letter. The guidelines are intended to make productive dialogue on complex and potentially emotional topics possible, but it is not and could not be a complete list of debate stumbling blocks, so members should not conclude that anything not explicitly mentioned is okay.Moderators will step in whenever they think they detect an approach or style that is hindering rather than helping debate. The particular position is irrelevant, only the approach. As long as the position is supported by argument and/or evidence, and as long as the substance of rebuttals is addressed rather than ignored, then there is no position not allowed here.There are literally dozens and dozens of ways to avoid addressing the issues. I'm reminded of the presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale in 1984 when Reagan was asked about the "age issue". Reagan, who was 73 at time, replied, "I have no desire to make an issue of the youth and inexperience of my opponent." Everyone got a good laugh and the debate moved on. But Reagan never answered what most would agree was a very important and relevant question.Had the debate taken place on this forum, Reagan would have been required to give a serious answer to the question.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Could technology account for the low-level of genetic
diversity amongst humans?If we build things that mean we don't have to adapt ...

Inuit's may not have fur ... but don't they have, in
general, a body shape that presents less surface area,
and have increased fat deposit functionality?I don't think yiou are looking for the right kinds of
diversity ... fleshy, heat dissapation surfaces would make
for a species other than human ... aybe in a million or so years
if the conditions stay as they are ... after all we are somewhat
different to the ramapethicus (if that's still a human ancestor )

I think this is it exactly. Organisms evolve in a general sense in response to changes in the environment. The environment of humans is no longer changing in that way - we're no longer at the mercy of the environment, we simply adapt the environment to suit us (eg. wearing clothes, agriculture, making weapons to detract predators).------------------
o--greyline--o[This message has been edited by greyline, 03-20-2003]

This topic is in the "Evolution" forum.It seemed to have started off as some sort of cosmology/theology discussion. This would put it into either the "Big Bang and Cosmology" or "Faith and Belief" forums.The discussion then somehow made the transition into human adaptation to an environment, which I guess could put it into the "Human Origins" forum, or back into the "Evolution" forum.It's all over the place ("Miscellaneous Topcis" forum?).I think it's best to close this one down, and start the topic(s) over again.Adminnemooseusps - It could probably use a better topic title.------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}