Thanks all for at last posting on the real issue of this topic, which was clearly described in the starting question.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

:)

.

.

Hi Cred. As you know I do believe in God, but to me it is a belief, a faith, not something that I can prove.

So, in answer to your question, I believe that the existence of God is completely belief and or faith related, as there is no actual evidence of the existence of God.

The things stated in the list that you provided are not in fact evidence of God, they are just evidence that the world still has many mysteries that we have yet to understand or comprehend.

That's my take on it anyway. :)

Hi Cred. As you know I do believe in God, but to me it is a belief, a faith, not something that I can prove.
For me you do not have to prove anything, Alt.
I respect anyone's belief, whatever it may be.

This topic refers to the position of certain people who CLAIM that incorrect and not replying to their questions (in this specific case about evolution) results in OSE for the existence of "God".

That is no longer a position of BELIEF and/or FAITH. It makes a wild claim that there is OSE for the existence of "God".
And that is what I oppose : you can not prove the existence of "God" by personal interpretations of queries and answers on these queries in an entire different field.

I do not claim that "God" exists or not exists.
This topic questions the position of a theist who claims that non-related issues are OSE for the existence of "God".

You are fully correct that belief in the existence of God is completely belief and or faith related, as there is no actual evidence for the existence of God.

And indeed : this "list" is just about mysteries we do not yet understand or comprehend.

Thanks for your reaction !

:)

.

.

Oh, I wouldn’t come close to saying that. Moral values are dramatically different among the various cultures. Take for example the pagan habits of the Mia Indians and the Incas. These cultures were equivalent in technology to the Romans and they practice human sacrifice on a huge scale. As far as some of the western cultures are concerned, some continued human sacrifice until they were Christianized during the early history of the Church. Now is this “evolution of culture”?

Even still, we aren’t discussing the evolution of culture, but life itself.

You mean the Incas killed people for ritual and sport. Like the Romans did with the gladiators and slaves or the Christians did with the American Indians or the Christians did with the Africans or the Christians did with the Muslims and the Christians did with the Jews and the Christians did with the catholics. All cultures have something not to be proud of even today. No creature is perfect humans are not an exception.



Are we discussing Chicago here? Have people in Chicago not benefited from Evolutionary Morals; there were more deaths related to crime in Chicago last year then deaths in the Iraq war. I suppose they are still evolving to the grade of the Iraqis’ highly evolved civilization. Maybe if they lived in bigger groups in Chicago they wouldn’t be so many shootings?
A group doesn't necessarily mean the people around a person. Haven't you ever felt alone in a crowded room. Evolution has taught us to not kill others in our group it's up to society to teach how big that group is. Failure of society is also a driving force of evolution and groups of humans are not exempt from extinction if there actions are contrary to group survival.



Without a God, what’s the point – the strongest, fastest shooting, straightest shooter, meanest bad guy wins.
The group of people that worked together got rid of the meanest guy and replaced him with people that were willing to work together. I don't care how strong or fast you are grouping is better for survival it's why so many animal do it.


Forgive me if you I laugh at the fact that our secular government will allow the death of 50 million innocent children while you call it the most moral society. It seems you follow your Greek friend Epicurus; what feels good is good. What feels good is moral.
All societies have abortions. It was common place in many to leave newborns to die if the parents couldn't or didn't want to take care of them. The morality of abortion though would be a topic for another thread I think that we should leave this particular topic alone in this thread.



No, I don’t buy “the superior” human approach.

Explain this, if human evolved into sentient, self-aware beings, why didn’t frogs, toads, monkeys, tigers, or any other animal? Why only one particular species? Why is there only one “human-like” being on this planet. Been visited by any of the other kind from outer space yet? It would seem to me that if you could overcome the odds that mankind evolved by chance then all the others species would also become sentient self-aware beings – many of which, according to Darwinism, have existed millions of years before man. Why don’t we have a great sea society of whales? Or sharks? Or Penguins?
JoeT

Who said humans are superior?

As far as us being the only sentient and self-aware beings. I don't agree with that. I think many animals are sentient and self-aware. Sometime I think my dog is more self-aware than many people.

Why we are the only human-like species? Well we out competed the others. There use to be many different kinds but they slowly died out. It points to that as for evolutionary success maybe humans aren't such a great design and lots can go wrong or it could point to that there is only so much room on earth for apex predators and something had to give. Who knows maybe we are like the dinosaurs and the humanoid design is on its way to extinction. I know there have been many times in the last 100,000 years or so that humans have come close to extinction.

Visitors from outer space? The galaxy is large maybe they haven't gotten to us yet. Maybe they have and they just decided to pass by us. Maybe the energy requirements are such that space travel out side a solar system isn't practical. Maybe we're the first intelligent species someone has to be why not us? Any number of reasons these are just few.

As far as why we don't have great societies of other animals. We do. Ants are far more successful than we are in that respect. You just need to change your measurements. You measure our greatness by our accomplishments. Evolution measures greatness by your ability to pass on your genes. Some early designs such as ants, jellyfish, sharks and horseshoe crabs are around today because they are good designs that allow them to pass on their genes. They are so good at what they do they have essentially stopped evolving. Humans are not the result of evolution we are simply one more creature in the path and only time will say whether this is a good design or not.

By the way I only use design because it sounds better than this particular evolution of this form.

JoeT,
I have had atheists argue about God's soveriegnty MORE than they argue He doesn't exist. I mostly think a lot just hate the fact that he is sovereign.

This is true. I think that the reason that so many atheists claim to believe that there is no God is that they have a grudge against God.

That is why Cred, for example, wanted everyone to example those examples of the evidence of God's existence, but when it turned out the wrong way, he wanted the discussion to stop.

It isn't so much that atheists do believe that there is no God. I think that is that they either hate God, or they hope that He does not exist.

I don't think its hate. It's about people placing rationality, relativism, and naturalism above God's absolute will.

I partially disagree. Look at one atheist on this thread who said that he has no reason for his belief that there is no God. "Rational" means that there is a reason. Therefore that atheist was effectively saying that his belief that there is no God was not rational.

Likewise, note that Cred would not dare to discuss the evidence for God. If you have been around him for any length of time, you will know that there is no way to have a rational discussion over the evidence for God's existence with him. He just will not listen or discuss - no matter what evidence that there is.

Thanks all for at last posting on the real issue of this topic, which was clearly described in the starting question.

Breathing a sigh of relief that the discussion has moved away from the evidence for God?

Don't forget in the OP, you ASKED for a discussion on the evidence that I put forward and requested that evolutionists bring forward the answers. You said:

"Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions."

But evolutionists do not have answers to how these various things came to be. Don't forget, Cred, that when we were on the other board, that you and others agreed that there were only two options - these things were created naturally or by an intelligent designer/creator. Once the one possibility goes, one remains. No doubt you will deny it now, but it does not matter, because the lack of answers by atheists has been shown clearly in this thread.

When they couldn't, and when you could (once again), you wanted an end to the evidence that flooded this thread that atheists had no way to refute the evidence that there is a God! They could not even explain a simple question such as this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVING BELL SPIDER

Still waiting for any feasible approach for this animal to have been created naturally:

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_bell_spider)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it funny how so many times over the years you have run away from the evidence for God! But Cred, what you don't know is that you can run, but no matter where you go, He is there. And when you finally come to the end of your life, you will have to deal with Him before the judgment throne.

You can run, but no matter where you go, you are never any further away from Him. Stop running Cred. Those who love truth do not need to fear truth.

Is there is a single atheist on here who can provide any OSE for their BELIEF that there is no God?

It is only fair that this question now be turned around the other way, now that the evidence for the existence for God has not been refuted.

Tj3, are you okay? Where did you prove God's existence? Did I miss it?

I read all the posts, none of them contain any OSE for the existence of God, so I don't understand how you think that this issue has been laid to rest.

If I missed something could you tell me which post this evidence is in?

Thank you.

Tj3, are you okay? Where did you prove God's existence? Did I miss it?

I read all the posts, none of them contain any OSE for the existence of God, so I don't understand how you think that this issue has been laid to rest.

If I missed something could you tell me which post this evidence is in?

Thank you.

I don't know what you missed - it is right there and as you can see, many others found it. I grant you Cred has done his best to bury the evidence. I suggest that you go back to the start of the thread.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I suggest that you tell me the page and the post number, or is it simply not available?

I have no desire to read through 27 pages of posts again. If it wasn't there the first time, I'm sure that it isn't there now.

If you really have the evidence, then tell me where it is, after all, this is your proof, your OSE, one would think that you'd practically force me to read it, not make me find it on my own.

No, I suggest that you tell me the page and the post number, or is it simply not available?

I have no desire to read through 27 pages of posts again. If it wasn't there the first time, I'm sure that it isn't there now.

If you really have the evidence, then tell me where it is, after all, this is your proof, your OSE, one would think that you'd practically force me to read it, not make me find it on my own.

Start at page 1 - that is where it starts - right with the first messages. It was the primary topic of this debate until Cred decided that things were going very much against what he hoped.

I have not intent to try to force anyone to read it. Heck, I did not even start the topic. Cred started it a couple of years ago on another board, and had toruble dealing with the result then. He started it again on this board, and then ended up beging people to get off the topic because it had gone entirely the wrong way as far as he was concerned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, because you don't know what caused DNA, or how it was formed, you automatically assume that it's existence proves that God is real?

That's not OSE, that's just deciding that because there's no other explanation then it has to be God.

Really, I'd love for that to be proof that I haven't been deluding myself all these years, that God does in fact exist, that it's not just a belief. If it was proof I'd be the first one to agree, but it isn't.

The fact is, we don't know how DNA was formed or what formed it. Maybe one day we will, but at this moment we do not. If you can one day prove without doubt that it was God's doing, then I'd be more than happy to accept that as fact.

Was there something else that I missed, or was that it?

So, because you don't know what caused DNA, or how it was formed, you automatically assume that it's existence proves that God is real?

I know how DNA was created. Is there a natural way in which it was created (not requiring a intelligent designer / creator)?


That's not OSE, that's just deciding that because there's no other explanation then it has to be God.

When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

Now, as I pointed out to michaelb, we do not expect atheists to provide all the answers, but simple to show a way in which it is even possible for DNA to have come about naturally.

BTW, you may not think that it is OSE, but this approach is used as proof in science all the time. I wonder why people will accept something as scientific fact if proven this way as long as it has no direct connection with God, but reject it when it might demonstrate the reality of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I pointed out a natural way for all of your questions and you without any evidence to the contrary discounted it because you believe god did it.

Now I'll admit we don't have all of the details worked out but considering you don't even agree with evolution which is a fact. I don't know how you expect us to convince you of something that we still haven't figured out a theory for ourselves yet and as I have been saying for 27 pages now any of your questions that can't be answered only mean we lack knowledge in that particular subject. They by no means prove god. The only proof for god would be proof of the super natural. Once you prove the super natural you will have a much better chance at others believing in super natural events.

When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

No, you have one option left. I never agreed to those terms.

Just because we don't understand everything in our world, that doesn't mean that God created it.

We don't have all the evidence for everything on this earth, and we don't have evidence of God either.

Maybe the spaghetti monster created everything, or maybe aliens did. Do you have proof that those claims aren't possible?

I know how DNA was created. is there a natural way in which it was created (not requiring a intelligent designer / creator)?



When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

Now, as I pointed out to michaelb, we do not expect atheists to provide all the answers, but simple to show a way in which it is even possible for DNA to have come about naturally.

BTW, you may not think that it is OSE, but this approach is used as proof in science all the time. I wonder why people will accept something as scientific fact if proven this way as long as it has no direct connection with God, but reject it when it might demonstrate the reality of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming you could understand it, at least the author of this site applies some very serious science and reasoning in his attempt to map the Evolution of DNA: Evolution of DNA (http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html)

When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

I can think of hundreds of ways life came about, each equally implausable as the next, and as equally unsupported by evidence as the next. Just because your one is written down in a book doesn't mean it's more likely and should be given more weight.

There are a few ways that do look likely according to the evidence we have, and it's these that we are focusing in on in order to explain how life came about. (PS. None of them are evolution, it doesn't explain "creation", and I doubt that cred said so)

I heard a quote somewhere I think by a Catholic priest and it went something like this:

"Science attempts to explain the how life occurred, and Religion attempts to explain why life occurred."

I think the two can co-exist; but there are some who choose the bible as the only authority on the how, and the why. I was given a brain to reason, the truth is the truth and to me my truth it is evident through my experiences and reasoning which admittedly is ever evolving, but to me it is unthinkable to merely accept the canned truth from a single source.

I pointed out a natural way for all of your questions and you without any evidence to the contrary discounted it because you believe god did it.

You obviously did not read bthe rbuttals. The rebuttals all had to do with issues about whether the suggested approach was possible. Not once did not mention God as a reason.You seem fixated on that. I said and have held to it, that would be willing to deal with the issue solely from a scientific perspective, but oddly, the atheists on here appear unwilling to do so.

No, you have one option left. I never agreed to those terms.

And I never asked you too. Cred brought over a discussion which had ended about a year ago on another site where all involved did agree (as you will see in the OP).

I am quite willing to look at alternatives - what alternative would you like to add into the mix?

I can think of hundreds of ways life came about, each equally implausable as the next, and as equally unsupported by evidence as the next.

Then let's look at any one of them.

Assuming you could understand it, at least the author of this site applies some very serious science and reasoning in his attempt to map the Evolution of DNA: Evolution of DNA (http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html)

I see very little in this article that explains how the DNA programming came to be. He does speak about the mutations in the code, but of course that requires that code already exists.

I canned other parts of the site but it seems to me that he is basing a lot of the theory that we already discussed earlier in this thread. Further, if you think that I am goingh to read an entire website to find out what you think that the answer is, that is not going to happen. If you think that there are key details, then give us your proposal in summary form.

Then let's look at any one of them.
1. Extraterretials planted life here
2. The life in cells always existed, they found a good host on Earth and became more complex

1. Extraterretials planted life here
2. The life in cells always existed, they found a good host on Earth and became more complex

1) Where did the extraterrestraisl come from? How did they come to be?
2) How did the increasing complexity happen?

TJ3,

Your entire rebuttal consisted of


You have not even provided a feasible hypothesis yet.

No where did you prove that chemicals can't self replicate.
No where did you prove that lipid bubbles can't form.
No where did you prove that Nucleotides in lipid bubbles don't grow faster.
No where did you prove that self replicating chemicals in lipid bubbles don't copy with diversity.
No where did you prove that these chemicals weren't on earth at the time.
No where did you prove that monomers can't become polymers.
No where did you prove anything.

And I never asked you too. Cred brought over a discussion which had ended about a year ago on another site where all involved did agree (as you will see in the OP).

I am quite willing to look at alternatives - what alternative would you like to add into the mix?


I don't have any alternatives to add, I'm not a scientist, an evolutionist, any kind of "ist", but that doesn't mean that I automatically say that God did it because there isn't any other explanation.

You are just choosing God because you don't believe it was science. The fact is that no one can prove how DNA came to be, you cannot default to God just because an explanation hasn't been found yet.

Like I said, it's just as likely that aliens or the spaghetti monster had a hand in it, we don't have any proof of them either.

If you want to accept DNA as proof of God's existence, well, I can't stop you from believing that, but do not claim that it is OSE for God's existence, because it really isn't.

Remember, I do believe in God too, but obviously I don't believe in the same God as you. Did God have a hand in creating the world? I believe he did, but not to the extent that you do. My belief is that he got the ball rolling, but the rest just followed. In other words, I think God and science are the creators of this earth we live in, but it's just belief, not fact, and I'm fine with that.

Please read the header of this topic :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Once more I have to ask you : DO NOT REPLY to Tj3's continuing attempt to force this thread off-topic towards his "list" of evolution queries, while the topic used this list only to illustrate the faulty argument Tj3 used to "prove" the existence of "God".

Note also that TJ3 never provided any OSE for the existence of "God".
Note that TJ3 tries everything to go off-topic here, because he knows his arguments fail completely.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

I repeat :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

There is no OSE for the existence of "God". I do not expect there ever will be any OSE for the existence of "God".
You can BELIEVE in "God" , you can have FAITH in "God" . But you can not provide OSE for the existence of "God", because there is no such OSE.

The existence of "God" can only be "proved" by OSE for the existence of "God". Not with subjective reasoning.

And no query, no question, no reply - faulty or not - on one issue can provide OSE for a completely different issue , in this specific case in the claimed existence of "God".

.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

.

Sorry Cred, I didn't realize that I was going off topic, I just followed Tj3's lead and before I knew it, wham, we strayed.

I'll let you get back to your thread, just wanted to say I'm sorry. If you'd like me to remove my posts I will, let me know. :)

Dear Alty :

No need to say sorry. No problem . I know you reacted to earlier posts.

I intend to repeat my previous message every time from now anyone here is posting about evolution instead of about the real topic : OSE for "God's" existence.

This topic is CLEARLY about the existence of "God", not about the evolution queries from Tj3's list.

Even after repeated requests Tj3 refuses to drop the evolution issue, and goes OFF-TOPIC from the real issue. The reason is clear: Tj3 knows there is no OSE for the existence of "God". Every next time Tj3 goes off-topic here again I will report him for that.

All one can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in "God". But no queries (evolution or other) and replies to such queries can provide OSE for the existence of "God"?

:)

.

.

TJ3,

Your entire rebuttal consisted of

Michaelb, if you are not going to read my posts, then why are you even bothering to post.

I said much more in post #31, for starters and many others.

It is worthy of note that you chose not to actually provide a quote of what I said. That is because it would expose your deception!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have any alternatives to add, I'm not a scientist, an evolutionist, any kind of "ist", but that doesn't mean that I automatically say that God did it because there isn't any other explanation.

You are welcome to your opinion. This was a discussion on what the scientific evidence shows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please read the header of this topic :

[B]THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD"

This is funny - You claim that you want to discuss the validity of the claims, but wish to only do so if no one is allowed to examine the claims.

The claims have been examined Tj3, and they aren't valid proof of the existence of God.

Eeek, sorry, I promised I'd stay out of it.

Okay, back to my corner. :(

It is worthy of note that you chose not to actually provide a quote of what I said. That is because it would expose your deception!

I quoted you from your post #156 so no deception on my part but regardless. You entire line of thinking is off. Even if we don't have good hypothesis all it means is we don't know that's all it means. It doesn't mean that god did it, it only mean we don't have all the answers it doesn't mean we won't find them later. The only evidence for the supernatural is the supernatural

Is there is a single atheist on here who can provide any OSE for their BELIEF that there is no God?.
It is only fair that this question now be turned around the other way, now that the evidence for the existence for God has not been refuted.
Why should Atheists provide any argument against the existence of "God"??
I am an Atheist, but I - with almost all Atheists - never claimed that "God" does not exist. I just question the existence of "God", and each time I ask for "proof" for the existence of "God" when someone here states that he/she "knows" that "God" exists, there is a deep and dead silence (or someone posts a silly list with irrelevant queries in response).

Besides that : the onus to prove anything is on the claimer, i.e. on the Theist, not on anyone else.
You may BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God" , but you can not provide OSE for the existence of "God". It is that simple...

And as there never was any OSE for the existence of "God" provided anywhere, at anytime, by anyone, there is nothing to refute by Atheists.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Please read the header of this topic :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".
********THIS IS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD"********.

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent. I, xiii) provides us with the logic of how we can know of God’s existence:

• Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

• For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

• The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

• The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e. an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

• The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

SOURCE: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Existence of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm)

Consequently, we see once again a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient.

JoeT

implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

You said it all, implies, not proves.

Tj3,

For me, I think the JEW is evidence enough to believe that God exists AND not only that he exists BUT that the bible is HIS complete Word to us.

Cred,

What you don't understand is that God doesn't have to prove anything to you! I have said earlier I can't prove it. I think what TJ3 has given you has been MORE than food for thought. If you would stop for a few seconds to actually PONDER some of this stuff... maybe something would sink in! ( OK.. maybe not) but what do you gain by insisting on proof? The way I see it, YOU WIN! So? If I could give you proof it would make not one ounce of difference.

I quoted you from your post #156 so no deception on my part but regardless.

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. I was not even responding to you in that post. You may be thinking of #155, but that was not where I responded to you theories and I said much much more - so you are being deceptive. My response to you was, as I pointed out several times before, in #31. Why you chose to go to a completely different post is a matter that only you can know.

So you are being deceptive.

Those who love truth do not need to fear it.

Why should Atheists provide any argument against the existence of "God" ???

I did not say that. I said OSE for their BELIEF that there is no God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tj3,

For me, I think the JEW is evidence enough to believe that God exists AND not only that he exists BUT that the bible is HIS complete Word to us.

Amen!

I have been preparing for a talk that I am giving in two weeks on the evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine, and when I review the evidence once again, it just amazes me how overwhelming the evidence for the Bible is.

I have been preparing for a talk that I am giving in two weeks on the evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine, and when I review the evidence once again, it just amazes me how overwhelming the evidence for the Bible is.
... evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine...

The Bible is an entire different topic, including any sort of evidence for that Bible.

What about Objective Supported Evidence (OSE) for the existence of "God" ?

THAT IS THE TOPIC HERE !!!

Once more Tj3 : stay on topic!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

... evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine ...

The Bible is an entire different topic, including any sort of evidence for that Bible.

What about Objective Supported Evidence (OSE) for the existence of "God" ?

THAT IS THE TOPIC HERE !!!



Cred,

You alter what you claim to be the topic whenever the truth becomes uncomfortable for you - which is very often

You cry wolf too often.

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. I was not even responding to you in that post. You may be thinking of #155, but that was not where I responded to you theories and I said much much more - so you are being deceptive. My response to you was, as I pointed out several times before, in #31. Why you chose to go to a completely different post is a matter that only you can know.

So you are being deceptive.

Those who love truth do not need to fear it.

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. Post #156 is your post which I quoted you responding to me.

Your response in #32 simply shows that you won't except any answer other than the super natural for these events. You don't disprove a single one of the theories I present. You simply say you don't believe that they are possible. Which considering you don't thing any natural solution for anything is possible, how am I not surprised.

You have no proof that any of the theories I presented are not correct. You simply have your repeated ramblings.

THIS IS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD[/B]
St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) provides us with the logic of how we can know of God’s existence:
St. Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" is no OSE, but a religious and philosophic work written by a human being.

:rolleyes:

.

.

You alter what you claim to be the topic whenever the truth becomes uncomfortable for you - which is very often
Just read the header Tommy!! Is that text perhaps too difficult for you to understand ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. Post #156 is your post which I quoted you responding to me.


I invite anyone to go and check it out.

You have revealed a great deal about yourself by the fact that you willing to deny the truth.

Just read the header Tommy !!! Is that text perhaps too difficult for you to understand ?


Maybe you should read it yourself!! :D :D:D:D:D

Maybe you should read it yourself!!!!!Ok : it reads : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Even an 8 year old child can understand that header text and the question involved.

Now please reply in the intention of that header text and discuss here accordingly.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Ok : it reads : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Exactly!! So why are you trying to stop people from discussing the Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

:D :D :D :D :D

Exactly!!!!! So why are you trying to stop people from discussing the Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?
I never tried to stop any discussion on the existence of "God".
I just do not want you to go off-topic and interfere in this discussion with your evolution queries.

Please tell me WHENEVER WHEREVER have you ever provided Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ? Never I say. Because such Objective Supported Evidence simply does not exist!!

All one can do is BELIEVE in "God's" existence!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

I never tried to stop any discussion on the existence of "God".

Memory problems, Cred?

Memory problems, Cred?
No, surely no ! Never had any. But if you can show me wrong please do so !

Please remember : no evolution stuff here : just provide as per the topic Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

No, surely no ! Never had any. But if you can show me wrong please do so !

Fine, then lets discuss the evidence for God's existence.

Tell me how the first cell came to be.

Fine, then lets discuss the evidence for God's existence.
Tell me how the first cell came to be.
I suggest we keep to the topic : let us remain with discussing Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, instead of discussing just any (Subjective Supported) Evidence for "God's" existence.

One : whatever way that first cell came into being, that can in no way be seen as OSE for the existence of "God".

Two : Of course I personally was not there when that first cell came to be. But science provides increasingly better ideas on how that first cell came to be.

Three : there may be alternative ways in which the first cell came to be.

Four : that we do not know or can provide OSE to the scientific explanation does not mean that your religious based claim is factual. You have to prove that claim. By providing Objective Supported Evidence for your claim, i.e. for "God's" existence.

The question is now : can YOU do that ? Can YOU provide Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Add-on : please refrain from expanding into posts about evolution, or I will have to report you for going off-topic!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

I suggest we keep to the topic : let us remain with discussing Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, i

So you will stop interfering with those who want to discuss the topic?

Good.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you really believed that nature does not provide evidence of God, you would not be so afraid to discuss it.

MACAWS : Macaws are .....
----------
Abuse note
----------

Post 308

Topic : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence?
Abuse : continuing topic abuse by Tj3
Argument : the topic is CLEARLY about the existence of "God", not about the evolution queries from Tj3's list.

Even after repeated requests Tj3 refuses to drop the evolution issue, and goes OFF-TOPIC from the real issue at stake : can (evolution) queries and replies to such queries provide OSE for the existence of "God"?

:(

.

.

Cred,

Posting that publicly is a violation of the rules itself, and proof that you are trying to stop discussion of the topic.

Posting that publicly is a violation of the rules itself, and proof that you are trying to stop discussion of the topic.
I was not aware of that. It was not intended as such. If so I apologize for that. It was intended after multiple requests thereto as a warning for you and others not to post about evolution here.

No I do not try to stop discussion of the topic. I try to stop the topic you insist to introduce here, which is off-topic in the first place and a violation of the rules.

Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence is an important and interesting issue, and all you so far have tried is to stop it, and replace it with your strawman babble about evolution.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

No I do not try to stop discussion of the topic.

The your fingers are typing something other than what you are thinking.

Tj3, if you want to discuss other topics that do not coincide with this one, then start your own thread. Continuiing to argue isn't getting us anywhere. Or do you disagree?

I'm always up for a good debate, but really, this is starting to get ridiculous. Either stick to the topic, start your own topic on your own thread, or leave this thread alone. It's not hard to do.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Once more I have to ask you : DO NOT REPLY to Tj3's continuing attempt to force this thread off-topic towards his "list" of evolution queries, while the topic used this list only to illustrate the faulty argument Tj3 used to "prove" the existence of "God".

Note also that TJ3 never provided any OSE for the existence of "God".
Note that TJ3 tries everything to go off-topic here, because he knows his arguments fail completely.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

I repeat :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

There is no OSE for the existence of "God". I do not expect there ever will be any OSE for the existence of "God".
You can BELIEVE in "God" , you can have FAITH in "God" . But you can not provide OSE for the existence
Of "God", because there is no such OSE.

The existence of "God" can only be "proved" by OSE for the existence of "God". Not with subjective reasoning.

And no query, no question, no reply - faulty or not - on one issue can provide OSE for a completely different issue , in this specific case in the claimed existence of "God".

.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

.

Tj3, if you want to discuss other topics that do not coincide with this one, then start your own thread. Continuiing to argue isn't getting us anywhere. Or do you disagree?

I'm always up for a good debate, but really, this is starting to get ridiculous. Either stick to the topic, start your own topic on your own thread, or leave this thread alone. It's not hard to do.


The topic is about the objective evidence for the existence of God, and what I am posting largely comes straight out of the OP. Let me quote a large excerpt from the OP. If Cfred does not like it, then he should not have started the thread. If you don't like it, you do not need to discuss it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In each and every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that each and every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are layed down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but canniot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tj3, if you want ...
I guess Tommy continues doing so to force this important and interesting topic to be closed by board management - clearly against my request.

Just because he knows that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and that his claims are invalid.

Another proof of Tommies intolerance...

:)

.

.

Just because he knows that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and that his claims are invalid.

If you really believed that you would not be so afraid to discuss the very topic that you started.

You even object to what you yourself posted in the OP!!

Another proof of Tommies intolerance...

I'm not that surprised though, are you Cred?

I give up. Fighting with Tj3 is a losing, frustrating, high blood pressure causing endeavour. Everything said seems to go in one ear and out the other.

Tom, believe what you want, just know that to the majority of people, what you believe is just that, a belief.

It was an interesting topic Cred, sadly I think you are correct, this thread will probably be closed soon.

Peace.

Tom, believe what you want, just know that to the majority of people, what you believe is just that, a belief.

It is interesting. The atheists want to discuss belief in God and avoid the objective scientific evidence. The Christians want to discuss what the objective scientific evidence is.

The atheists try to shut down the discussion of the objective scientific evidence and consider that "intolerance".

Cred even objects to quoting from his own OP.

If you really believed that you ...
This topic is about the issue of Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
Not for some other format , like your Subjective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

If you prefer to discuss that, please open your own topic "Subjective Supported Evidence for "Subjective Supported Evidence for " existence".

You always remain welcome to participate in this topic within the context and intend of that topic.

Add-on : just as you insist others to do within any topic you or other people started...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

This topic is about the issue of Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

So stop interfering with the discussion.

I guess Tommy continues doing so to force this important and interesting topic to be closed by board management - clearly against my request.

Just because he knows that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and that his claims are invalid.

Another proof of Tommies intolerance ....

:)

.

.

"Tommies intolerance?" tee hee hee.. well you have been so TOLERANT I can just imagine how FRUSTRATED you must feel. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You do realize that I'm not an atheist, don't you Tom?

I'm a Deist, look up the definition. I do believe in God, I also believe in science, and I have common sense, logic that tells me that an entire universe created by God, well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, therefore it must not be true.

I don't have the answers, and I'm not willing to accept an answer made by default because we haven't figured everything out yet. That's what you are doing, assigning God to everything that doesn't have an explanation yet.

Maybe it will turn out you're right, but until someone says "I have evidence that God created all of this" and I see the evidence is fact, well, until then, your evidence is nothing but your belief.

Once again Cred, I apologize for straying of the topic.

I will be removing my subscription to this thread, that way I won't be tempted to come back.

Good luck gentlemen.

You do realize that I'm not an atheist, don't you Tom?

You already stated that you are not discussing the issue regarding the objective scientific evidence, so I am not referring to you.

So stop interfering with the discussion.
The Objective Supported Evidence referred to here, is not about any of your claims.
It is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

My request was and still is : is there any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence?

Is any other Objective Supported Evidence (for other issues) Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence?

No more evolution please, Tommy.
No more first cell please , Tommy.

Just Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence only...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

It is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

Exactly - so stop interfering with the discussion.

What do you have to fear? If you are right, the discussion would show it. If not, then - oh I see why you keep interfering.

Those who love truth do not need to fear the truth.

Exactly - so stop interfering with the discussion.
You refuse to stay on topic Tommy, with your evolution babble.
The discussion is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .

May be you do not understand the concept of Objective Supported Evidence , as you keep trying to use (Objective?) Supported Evidence for one thing as Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .

It simply does not work that way.

---

By the way : I just see that Obama crossed the 50% line and is the next US President : CONGRATULATIONS : GOOD CHOICE !!!

.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

.

.

You refuse to stay on topic Tommy, with your evolution babble.

I am not the one who keeps bringing up evolution.


The discussion is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .

So stop interfering with the discussion.

Let's get back to the topic. Here is an excerpt from the OP:

============================
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only one answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question above was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at around 33 degrees. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.
========================

So the challenge by Cred is for evolutionists to answer these questions - can they?

Or will Cred try to shut down the discussion once again out of fear that the answers do not exist.

Please read the header of this topic :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Once more I have to ask you : DO NOT REPLY to Tj3's continuing attempt to force this thread off-topic towards his "list" of evolution queries, while the topic used this list only to illustrate the faulty argument Tj3 used to "prove" the existence of "God".

Note also that TJ3 never provided any OSE for the existence of "God".
Note that TJ3 tries everything to go off-topic here, because he knows his arguments fail completely.
Note that Tj3 shows his intolerance by preferring to get this topic closed by Board Management instead.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

I repeat :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

There is no OSE for the existence of "God". I do not expect there ever will be any OSE for the existence of "God".
You can BELIEVE in "God" , you can have FAITH in "God" . But you can not provide OSE for the existence of "God", because there is no such OSE.

The existence of "God" can only be "proved" by OSE for the existence of "God". Not with subjective reasoning.

And no query, no question, no reply - faulty or not - on one issue can provide OSE for a completely different issue , in this specific case in the claimed existence of "God".

.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

.

What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existence?

What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existance?

I don't know if you are addressing me or someone else, but I'll take a stab at your question.

Yes, it does prove his existence to YOU. Who else matters when it comes to your relationship with God? What would you care if nobody else believed you, you know your truth; and after you've spoken with God, why would you care what others thought or believed?

Please read the header of this topic :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Then stop trying to interfere with the discussion of the topic.

===========================
If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only one answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

(Source: OP)
===========================

What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existance?

Yes even though that was not the approach addressed in the OP, but before we go that far, we need to ask how you validated that the source that was speaking to you was in fact God? Because just because somebody spoke to you does not mean that it is God. The Bible warns of deceiving spirits.

Yes even though that was not the approach addressed in the OP, but before we go that far, we need to ask how you validated that the source that was speaking to you was in fact God? Beacuse just because somebody spoke to you does not mean that it is God. The Bible warns of deceiving spirits.

I agree. If it IS God, then what you feel you have been told MUST line up with the word of God. Course this is off the topic and Cred really doesn't like us to stray... he gets "intolerant" when we do that... :D.

Wait so in the story where god tells Abraham to kill his son and Abraham goes to do it.

Was that lining up with the word of god or should Abraham not listened.

And what about all the people that say god told them to kill their children in modern times, do you considor that proof that god still speaks to people today?

Wait so in the story where god tells Abraham to kill his son and Abraham goes to do it.

Was that lining up with the word of god or should Abraham not listened.

And what about all the people that say god told them to kill their children in modern times, do you considor that proof that god still speaks to people today?

First of all concerning Abraham, God spoke directly to him and he knew it was God. There was no written Word of God in his day and Abraham actually heard from God many times. He KNEW God, he TRUSTED him. The Lord came to him and told him his wife Sara was going to have a baby at the ripe old age of 90 something. In the natural it IS impossible but it happened. He also said that through Isaac he would make a great nation. God proved himself to be faithful to Abraham and when God told him to offer up Isaac he did just that. God was testing him and please note... God did NOT make him offer up his son. It was a test. God provided a ram for the sacrifice... not Isaac. He just wanted to see how much Abraham trusted him.

My point on God speaking to us now is this, everything he wants us to know is in the Word of God. Sometimes men will say they have felt the Lord tell them or lead them this way or that BUT if that IS the case... whatever way they feel the Lord is directing them... it CAN NOT go against the Written Word or it is NOT GOD. God is NOT telling anyone to kill their kids that is just ridiculous to even suggest.

GOD told George W. Bush to go kill Arabs. The American public agreed to do that with him. Their kids are dying because of it. Is that not ridiculous to even suggest? That you send your kids to be killed because GOD spoke to Dubya?

Mag,

Michaelb was talking about killing your OWN kids.. not a war. I don't want to get into the war thing and George Bush. War is totally different. AND NO ONE sent their kids off to KILL ARABS because President Bush heard God say so.

Even if it was a test, why would someone agree to kill their own child, and why would a God that is the creator of all, the father of all, a good, kind, loving God, even ask for someone to prove their devotion to him in such a way?

This is why I don't believe in the bible, if that is the God that I'm supposed to follow, then no thank you.

Off topic again. I can't stop coming back, I did hit unsubscribe but then I decided to see what was going on and again I'm drawn back in.

I do apologize, but it's hard to stay on topic when no one else does.

Where in the bible does it say god won't test you? If you do hear voices how do you know the original people that said they heard god actually heard the real god and not some spirit that was trying to drive them away from one of the older better known gods?

Now I agree that god isn't telling anyone to kill their kids however that's because I don't think some higher being is talking to anyone.

I still have to ask when you add up all of the evidence for the god of the bible. If you had heard these stories today without hearing them all your life would you really believe they were true stories? Say similar stories that come out of Africa or Asia that have just as much evidence do you dismiss those out right or do you believe those as well?

Altenweg,

Everyone is off topic.. don't worry about it.

Yeah I know, people always want to question God it is part of our nature. God can't go back on his Word and Abraham understood that. God had already made a promise that he would make Isaac a great nation. If he would have killed Isaac, this couldn't have happened. There are lots of reasons God put this in his Word. One of them is that it is a perfect picture of God sacrificing HIS OWN son for us.

I agree. If it IS God, then what you feel you have been told MUST line up with the word of God. course this is off the topic and Cred really doesn't like us to stray...he gets "intolerant" when we do that...
As usual that is incorrect. The OP is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence . So any argument on the claimed existence of "God" is fine with me, and is welcome to be posted here.

As the focus of this topic is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence (and not for queries on evolution), I object to discussions and arguments on views on evolution, how interesting such dabates may be (and I invite anyone who is interested in such debates on evolution to start his or her own topic).

The basic topic query here is : can claimed OSE for anything else than the existence of "God" be used to claim OSE for the existence of "God" ?

Tj3 has a point where he stated : "... we need to ask how you validated that the source that was speaking to you was in fact God? Beacuse just because somebody spoke to you does not mean that it is God... "

Indeed , but not only that . Before you worry about validating the source, you should make sure that your premise is correct : is there any Objective Supported Evidence that "God" exist in the first place ?

:)

.

.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

There is no OSE for the existence of "God". I do not expect there ever will be any OSE for the existence of "God".
You can BELIEVE in "God" , you can have FAITH in "God" . But you can not provide OSE for the existence of "God", because there is no such OSE.

The actual existence of "God" can only be "proved" by OSE for the existence of "God". Not with subjective reasoning.

And no query, no question, no reply - faulty or not - on one issue can provide OSE for a completely different issue , in this specific case in the claimed existence of "God".

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

.

Where in the bible does it say god won't test you? If you do hear voices how do you know the original people that said they heard god actually heard the real god and not some spirit that was trying to drive them away from one of the older better known gods?

Now I agree that god isn't telling anyone to kill their kids however that's because I don't think some higher being is talking to anyone.

I still have to ask when you add up all of the evidence for the god of the bible. If you had heard these stories today without hearing them all your life would you really believe they were true stories? Say similar stories that come out of Africa or Asia that have just as much evidence do you dismiss those out right or do you believe those as well?

God does test you. But I said he won't go outside of his WORD. We are to follow the laws of the Land and if the "voice" you hear says otherwise... it isn't God. Take a man that has a wife and 4 kids.. he has NO JOB.. he is NOTt supporting THEM but he thinks he hears the voice of God tell him to go preach the gospel in a third world county... it isn't GOD because God expects the man to take care of his family FIRST. Those are some examples. God won't tell us to do something contrary to his Word.

Michael, yes I believe the stories in the Word of God. They aren't just stories, they have meaning and when you dive into them, it is amazing. There just is NO WAY the book wasn't inspired of God.

Almost all stories have meaning when you look into them that's what makes them good stories. Most stories even have a bit of truth in them too. It makes them more interesting. If you can relate to them.
That's why when Plato spoke of Atlantis he used places that the locals knew about in order to describe it's location yet he made it out of reach for people of his day to go looking for it. He also put a moral lesson in the story. That's why the story of Atlantis still endures today not because it's true but because it's a good story.

God does test you....
You mean : I BELIEVE that God does test you...

There is no OSE that "God" exists. You BELIEVE that.
There is no OSE that "God" - if "God" exists - tests you. You BELIEVE that.

:)

.

.

Cred,

no.. I said it right the first time... :)

Michael,

It is MORE than just meaning.. there are pictures and types of hidden truths in the Old Testament revealed in the New. Cred, is going to kick me out of here if I don't stop changing his topic. Sorry Cred.

Objective Supported Evidence

It seems that empirical deduction isn't sufficient; somehow it's not supportive enough. Since God isn't a being constructed of matter I can't place God in your hand as “self-evidence” of his existence. Previously stated was for life (matter) there must be a “first mover” or a “first cause;” something to create that matter, something to move it. All of which is like the allegorical story of the Watch.

The contemplative Watch is convinced there is no Watchmaker. How does he know this? Well, he asked to hear the Maker's tic; wanting to hear if the Maker's works sounds like a Makers tic. Silence; he got no response. The Watch asked to see the Maker's time to check the accuracy of the Maker. Still in the dark, he got no response. Of course the Watchmaker could only laugh, knowing the Watch wasn't given ears. But, rather the Watch had superior workings, the rhythm of which was self evidentiary proof of the Maker's expertise. Likewise, the Watch wasn't given eyes, only sweeping hands across a face. He couldn't see the correctness of the Maker. Thus with this subjective reasoning the Watch concluded he made himself.

The "first cause" means that matter can't produce matter. Thus, a being, living in the natural world, must have been created by a being not of the natural world. God, a supernatural being created man.

St. Augustine said, “But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be spoken of as limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is bestowed upon all things, so that they may in any measure exist. Nor again ought God to be called measured, as if He received measure from any one. But if we say that He is the highest measure, by chance we say something; if indeed in speaking of the highest measure we mean the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a measure is good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified, without praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak of no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with praise as when it is said: "And of His kingdom there shall be no limit." Luke 1:33 For it might also be said, "There shall be no measure," so that measure might be used in the sense of limit; for He who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at all.”

JoeT

I agree. If it IS God, then what you feel you have been told MUST line up with the word of God. course this is off the topic and Cred really doesn't like us to stray...he gets "intolerant" when we do that...:D.

Cred started with one topic and wants to change it so that he can control what we can and cannot talk about. He has no control over the board, though he likes to think he does, so I abide by the rules of the board, not Cred's rules which vary by whim. The last board that I was on where he was, he tried controlling it, and when people would not go along with what he said, he hacked the board by adding code to his message to make it impossible to continue any discussion where we did not obey his rules. He called it "closing the thread". That is one reason that he is no longer on that board.

Your argument that god must be the first mover is wrong because if god can exist forever than something else can exist for ever.

Like are we forgetting that energy can not be created or destroyed. So all of the energy out there has always been there even before the big bang. So if energy exists forever we don't need god to exist forever and be the first mover because energy was always there.

Now if you want to say your god is energy that's fine with me. I even agree that energy exists. However that doesn't prove the bible god.

Your argument that god must be the first mover is wrong because if god can exist forever than something else can exist for ever.

God is not a thing. If God is the first cause of everything else existing, then by definition, nothing else coulod have existed forever. That is not logical.


Like are we forgetting that energy can not be created or destroyed.

Two problems with that comment:

1) It is not true. Energy can be created and destroyed. What you are probably thing of is the fact that the overall constant of mass and energy throughout the universe remains a constant. Energy however can be chnaged into mass, and mass into energy.

2) This law does not say that mass and energy existed eternally into the past, only that under natural physical laws, energy/mass remain constant into the future.


So all of the energy out there has always been there even before the big bang.

Conclusion is not warranted for the reason given in #2 above.

God is not a thing. If God is the first cause of everything else existing, then by definition, nothing else coulod have existed forever. That is not logical.
If god is the first cause yes but as I have stated and you have stated it is still an "if". However the our observation don't lead us to that line of thinking. I can't even say your right about god not being a thing, I was thinking you were right because god is a human concept not a real thing but a human concept is still a thing.




Two problems with that comment:

1) It is not true. Energy can be created and destroyed. What you are probably thing of is the fact that the overall constant of mass and energy throughout the universe remains a constant. Energy however can be chnaged into mass, and mass into energy.

2) This law does not say that mass and energy existed eternally into the past, only that under natural physical laws, energy/mass remain constant into the future.


First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Matter is still energy, it's potential energy but it's still energy you know the whole E=MC2. If you want I'll dig up some links on this but I don't think I need to I'm sure my point on this one.

Now I know there are certain times when our basic physical laws don't work anymore. However we have no evidence of energy not always existing and since at this point in our technology all we can do is speculate what conditions were like before the big bang. I'm going with that energy has always existed since there is no evidence to the contrary. Which I fully admit it is speculation based on our limited technology, however as I have said anyone who says anything about the conditions before the big bang is speculating and is not proof of anything.

It seems that empirical deduction isn’t sufficient; somehow it’s not supportive enough.
Indeed Joe. As stated many times before on this board I have no problem with what people BELIEVE.

But the moment anyone here claims that what he/she BELIEVES and/or "KNOWS" is fact/factual, like that "God" exists, and/or that "God" can do this or that and/or has this or that and/or is this or that, it is for me the moment to ask for Objective Supported Evidence for these wild claims.

And as long as such OSE is north forthcoming such claim remains invalid.

Only OSE for the existence of "God" provides validity for the existence of "God".
Nothing else will be. That is why the claim of "God" is called BELIEF !!

:)

.

.

Cred started with one topic and wants to change it so that he can control what we can and cannot talk about.
That is a lie, and you know it!! The current discussion is precisely accordingly to what was stated in the topic starting question.

Is your lying an example of your - what I call - LYING FOR "GOD" ?
Is that perhaps the new way of operation of the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and the Signs of Scripture Conference?? May be I should let them know that...

:D :D :D :D :D

Till next time : I'm going to a Mensa meeting tonight !

:)

.
.

I don't even really have problem when someone claims to know something and they really don't. What I have a problems with is when people try to regulate what they know without evidence as collective knowledge. Such as when they try to teach ID in science classes.

Your argument that god must be the first mover is wrong because if god can exist forever than something else can exist for ever.
Which is precisely the point, God was, God is and God will be eternal.


Like are we forgetting that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So all of the energy out there has always been there even before the big bang. So if energy exists forever we don't need god to exist forever and be the first mover because energy was always there.
Everything in nature, everything of matter must be traced to back to a creator. Matter cannot make matter, nor can chemical reaction breathe awareness into protoplasmic life.

You personally may not need God to exist forever, nevertheless he does.

The change in entropy across the universe is constantly increasing, energy tends to form a homogeneous state throughout; what's known as heat death. This process is irreversible without the input of energy from the outside. And in an expanding universe entropy increases to the maximum possible reducing the available energy, more rapid in an expanding universe than one in a constant state. Since energy is continually decreasing in the universe it's logical that it must have started at its maximum when the universe was created. Hence, a creator, not of matter must have created energy as well as the universe. (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics)


Now if you want to say your god is energy that's fine with me. I even agree that energy exists. However that doesn't prove the bible god.
My God (And your God, whether you chose to recognize him) did as shown above create energy as well as all that is seen in nature. Again, I submit that all matter (including the living) is created and that science has not shown first cause/motion, universal perfection and order in the known world. Furthermore, a creator who exists outside of matter is necessary for the creation of matter and thus is real and supernatural. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-11.html#post1349606)


JoeT

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Matter is still energy, it's potential energy but it's still energy you know the whole E=MC2. If you want I'll dig up some links on this but I don't think I need to I'm sure my point on this one.
No, you don’t have this quit right. The first Law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation. That is, the change in energy is equal the amount added (or ducted) less the amount lost.

This can be expressed as:

E = Eq – Ew

Where E is the total energy increased, Eq is the energy added and Ew is the energy lost to work. Thus all the energy is conserved either in the system or is used for work.

Joe T

Your right I defined the law of conservation of energy which leads into the first law of thermodynamics.

Regardless of what you call it. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Point remains.

If god is the first cause yes but as I have stated and you have stated it is still an "if". However the our observation don't lead us to that line of thinking.

That is exactly what we were discussing when Cred so rudely kept trying to change from the topic of the thread.


First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

No, it can be changed to mass.


Matter is still energy, it's potential energy but it's still energy you know the whole E=MC2.

You just destroyed your argument. Do you understand thus equation? Let me explain it to you:

ENERGY = MASS times the SPEED OF LIGHT squared.

If mass were energy, then it would be E=M.

Your right I defined the law of conservation of energy which leads into the first law of thermodynamics.

Regardless of what you call it. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Point remains.

The point doesn’t stand. You missed the fact that there is a loss of energy.

The energy necessary for work includes a quantitative loss of energy as well as a loss in energy usually dissipating in the form of heat into surrounding systems, which in turn gains entropy in the adjoining systems, which in turn gains entropy in surrounding sets of systems, and finally entropy increases throughout the entire universe of systems. Universal heat death is the result. Without input from the outside the universe cannot gain energy. Without God, the universe is never created.

Matter cannot create matter. Matter like energy can only decay. Thus, we return to my original statement; empirical evidence shows the existence of God in the first cause/motion; universal perfection/order; and exists outside the material universe. Thus God exists, and God created heaven and earth.

JoeT

That is a lie, and you know it!! The current discussion is precisely accordingly to what was stated in the topic starting question.

Anyone can clearly read the OP at the bottom of each page, so your attempts to claim otherwise won't work.


Till next time : I'm going to a Mensa meeting tonight !

Are you going to tell them about your "west pointing compass" :D :D :D :D :D :D

Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin.
Which as far as we know has always existed.

Mass/energy are two sides of the same coin.

The point is energy and mass are two different things, and that the amount of either mass or energy may and will vary constantly, but the total of the combination of mass and energy in the universe remains constant. The belief that the amount of energy in the universe never changes was known to be error back before either you or I was alive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At one time, scientists thought that the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy were two distinct laws. In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter. Einstein's discovery required a restatement of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. In some instances, a tiny bit of matter can be created or destroyed in a change. The quantity is too small to be measured by ordinary balances, but it still amounts to something. Similarly, a small amount of energy can be created or destroyed in a change. But, the total amount of matter PLUS energy before and after a change still remains constant. This statement is now accepted as the law of conservation of mass and energy.
(Source: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ci-Co/Conservation-Laws.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which as far as we know has always existed.

Man's direct knowledge goes back only so far as we could measure the amount of mass + energy, which is in reality no more than several decades. At best if you argue that it goes back as far as man has observed nature, that may takes us back a few thousand years. Your sampling is therefore inadequate to justify that matter and energy has always existed.

Energy is not matter. Energy is not a physical thing.

Energy is a scalar attribute of matter usually used to describe work or generated heat. It takes several forms depending on the matter being disucssed, including kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound energy, light energy, elastic.

You cannot say that energy turns into a rock any more that you can say a 6 pound mass turns into a rock.

Come to think of it, you can say that a man named Simon turned into a Rock becoming the first authoritative head and foundation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church

JoeT

So lets get this straight from TJ3's posts


If mass were energy, then it would be E=M.


In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

First you say they aren't the same thing then you say they are. Since you latest post agrees with me that they are the same thing. Are we settled on that?

As for the second part where you say that our knowledge of energy/matter not being created or destroyed is limited. I already said I agree however that it is still pure speculation to say that before the big bang energy/matter did not exist and speculation is not evidence. Until we have evidence to the contrary physics would dictate that energy/matter exist forever.

So in summery energy/matter same thing different forms. Saying that god had to form energy/matter pure speculation because we do not know what the conditions were before the big bang. It could just as easily be explain in a number of natural ideas.

So lets get this straight from TJ3's posts
First you say they aren't the same thing then you say they are. Since you latest post agrees with me that they are the same thing. Are we settled on that?

This is where most problems in understanding come from. Someone grabs one phrase or sentence out of context, ignores the rest and then says - "see?"

The sentences that follow the one that yopu took out of context explain what is meant and disagree entirely with your claims:

"He showed that matter can change into energy and that energy can change into matter. Einstein's discovery required a restatement of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. In some instances, a tiny bit of matter can be created or destroyed in a change. The quantity is too small to be measured by ordinary balances, but it still amounts to something. Similarly, a small amount of energy can be created or destroyed in a change. But, the total amount of matter PLUS energy before and after a change still remains constant."

And you once were making demeaning comments about others on here not understanding science. This is such a basic and well understood principle of science that it is taught in grade schools. How you have come this far without having become aware of this is beyond me.


As for the second part where you say that our knowledge of energy/matter not being created or destroyed is limited. I already said I agree however that it is still pure speculation to say that before the big bang energy/matter did not exist and speculation is not evidence.

Once again, you might want to examine what evidence there is - or rather is not.


Until we have evidence to the contrary physics would dictate that energy/matter exist forever.

I got a laugh out of this. In one line you said "speculation is not evidence" and in the next sentence you tell me that in the absence of evidence, we should believe that for which no evidence exists. That is worse than speculation, and is most assuredly not science.

Still way off base TJ3...
Matter and energy are the same thing. What Einstein is referring to is the change of matter to energy and energy to matter. Nothing is lost, it's only been changed. Still equates to the total amount of energy that is available today was around for the big bang and probably forever.


I got a laugh out of this. In one line you said "speculation is not evidence" and in the next sentence you tell me that in the absence of evidence, we should believe that for which no evidence exists. That is worse than speculation, and is most assuredly not science.

Physics does currently dictate that energy/matter can not be created or destroyed the level remains the same. So this isn't speculation this is based on evidence. So until we have evidence to the contrary. When we discuss what might be we should use the knowledge we have. That is how science works. If we didn't we could just assume all things in science are wrong and make up anything we wanted because we could just say we don't know for certain if that's true or not. What you are suggesting is absurd.

So still no evidence of god unless your god is energy.

So to recap no evidence for god in chemistry, biology and physics. Any other subject you might want to bring up to try and prove god?

Still way off base TJ3....
Matter and energy are the same thing.

Eath to Michael!, Eath to Michael...!


Repeat: matter and energy is not the same thing in different forms or different states. Energy is nothing more than a scalar (measurable-having magnitude but no direction) attributes of matter.

When is the last time you saw energy turn into an apple, a falling apple, an apple about to fall?

JoeT

Eath to Michael!, Eath to Michael...!


Repeat: matter and energy is not the same thing in different forms or different states. Energy is nothing more than a scalar (measurable-having magnitude but no direction) attributes of matter.

When is the last time you saw energy turn into an apple, a falling apple, an apple about to fall?

JoeT

So what's a photon? It doesn't have a mass (strictly, a rest mass, which is what you are talking about here), but does have energy...

Mass is, put simply, a form of energy, you can create pure energy from annihilation reactions (say an electron and positron colliding), and the amount of energy is perfectly predicted by special relativity. (E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4)

Also, when Tj3 talks about there always being a loss of energy - this is not true. There is only a loss of useful energy. There will always be energy lost from a system through heat production or sound production or friction, but this energy is not destroyed, it is simply not useful to use and thus decreases the efficiancy of the system.

Please stop spewing about things you don't understand. You're only spreading the ignorance and making it difficult to clean up.

So what's a photon? It doesn't have a mass (strictly, a rest mass, which is what you are talking about here), but does have energy...

Mass is, put simply, a form of energy, you can create pure energy from annihilation reactions (say an electron and positron colliding), and the amount of energy is perfectly predicted by special relativity. (E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4)

Also, when Tj3 talks about there always being a loss of energy - this is not true. There is only a loss of useful energy. There will always be energy lost from a system through heat production or sound production or friction, but this energy is not destroyed, it is simply not useful to use and thus decreases the efficiancy of the system.

Please stop spewing about things you don't understand. You're only spreading the ignorance and making it difficult to clean up.


See the following: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)

See the following: Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)

Thanks, that cleans it up well. You'll see that it also refutes your point.

Joe your article is correct but it is missing the next part here is the rest that goes more into more detail of what we are discussing

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence)

Specifically
The concept of mass–energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing rest mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light) while still retaining mass. Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass. The total amount of mass/energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.

Thanks, that cleans it up well. You'll see that it also refutes your point.

While there may be a mass–energy comparative equivalence, it remains that energy is a measured quantity of an attribute of mass. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy, but there is no conversion of energy to mass. This is exactly what Michael's reference says, you can confirm the mass, by the energy. It doesn't say energy converts to mass. (Beam me up Scotty!)


There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. —The Feynman Lectures on Physics (My emphasis) Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)

JoeT

I think what your missing is that mass is a state of energy and that mass energy can be transferred to other states of energy such as light or heat.

Which means you can take an apple and convert it directly into heat or light. Then technically convert it back again. This conversion is the bases for E=MC2

I think what your missing is that mass is a state of energy and that mass energy can be transferred to other states of energy such as light or heat.

Which means you can take an apple and convert it directly into heat or light. Then technically convert it back again. This conversion is the bases for E=MC2
Let me try to make myself clearer. You can change inertia mass or gravatational mass in an existing object, but energy canot produce matter.

As I said - beam me up Scotty

When is the last time you've seen energy change into an apple?


JoeT

Guys,

I got to admit all this energy, iertia mass and gravatational mass is over my head.

BUT... I still say that there is a God and he himself says you should be able to look around and know it.

energy canot produce matter.

Yes it can, and does, such as in pair production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

While there may be a mass–energy comparative equivalence, it remains that energy is a measured quantity of an attribute of mass. Energy can be converted to other forms of energy, but there is no conversion of energy to mass. This is exactly what Michael's reference says, you can confirm the mass, by the energy. It dosn't say energy converts to mass. (Beam me up Scotty!)

So again I ask you, what is a photon?

...Are you going to tell them about your "west pointing compass" ...
Well : as you well know I proved you wrong when I stated that although a compass normally points "somewhere" northwards, there is quite an area on earth where that is NOT so.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc. but not northwards.

All you do is show your frustrations by trying to bring this dead horse to life again with your lies !!!

:D :rolleyes: :p :) :rolleyes: :D

.

.

So again I ask you, what is a photon?

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I’m grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I’m correct, it’s still matter.

Based on a brief reading of Wikipedia it still appears that the pair produced by bombarding a nucleus (matter) with a photon to produce an electron and a positron. So, I don’t see this as production of matter directly from energy.

JoeT

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I'm grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I'm correct, it's still matter.

Based on a brief reading of Wikipedia it still appears that the pair produced by bombarding a nucleus (matter) with a photon to produce an electron and a positron. So, I don't see this as production of matter directly from energy.

JoeT

A photon is not matter, it has 0 mass.

In pair production the nucleus does not lose any mass - it is simply needed for conservation of momentum. The pure energy of the photon creates particles with mass.

A photon is not matter, it has 0 mass.

In pair production the nucleus does not lose any mass - it is simply needed for conservation of momentum. The pure energy of the photon creates particles with mass.

Ok I'll accept that only because I don't have the knowledge to argue otherwise. So, make an apple with a photon.

JoeT

Ok I'll accept that only because I don't have the knowledge to argue otherwise. So, make an apple with a photon.

JoeT

Edit: Sorry I made a mess up of the math, I meant you supply the 27PJ photon first.

Edit: Sorry I made a mess up of the math, I meant you supply the 27PJ photon first.

So, that’s the best you can do for sending me a rotten apple!

JoeT

Still way off base TJ3....
Matter and energy are the same thing.

So you oppose science, and now you are telling us what you believe by faith.

Well : as you well know I proved you wrong when I stated that although a compass normally points "somewhere" northwards, there is quite an area on earth where that is NOT so.

Cred,

In your own mind you may believe that magnetic compasses based in Israel point west, but that is something that you hold by faith, but it is certainly not science.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc. but not northwards.

That is where a lot of disagreements on here originate with you - you can never admit that you are wrong even when everyone starting from children in grade in grade one know better about where compasses point.

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I'm grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I'm correct, it's still matter.

Joe,

These guys are just trying to play games by asking a question that no one has answered as of yet. A photon has not been isolated. It is simply a concept given to try to to explain how electromagnetic energy works.

Cred,

In your own mind you may believe that magnetic compasses based in Israel point west, but that is something that you hold by faith, but it is certainly not science.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc., but not northwards.

That is where a lot of disagreements on here originate with you - you can never admit that you are wrong even when everyone starting from children in grade in grade one know better about where compasses point.

It doesn’t matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter; all of which gets backs to St. Thomas's five postulates for proofs of God’s existence.

Actually, it was kind of fun. I had to reach back 40 years – and of course a lot of the science has changed since then. Come to think of it, I don’t think they had photons back then.

JoeT

It doesn’t matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter; all of which gets backs to St. Thomas's five postulates for proofs of God’s existence.

Actually, it was kind of fun. I had to reach back 40 years – and of course a lot has the science has changed since then.

JoeT

Quite right and you made some good points in the discussion.

The fact that the relationship between matter and energy is defined by E=MC squared proves by itself that matter and energy are not the same thing. This has never been taught by science.

I find it fascinating that the atheists on here claim to use facts and science, and yet the science has consistently been on the side of the Christians on here.

So you oppose science, and now you are telling us what you believe by faith.
No I am right in line with today's accepted science you just don't understand it. Which doesn't surprise me if you are sure god did something why waste the time studying what other people say when you know god did it.


These guys are just trying to play games by asking a question that no one has answered as of yet.
If I had an irony censor it would have over loaded on this post from you.

No I am right in line with today's accepted science you just don't understand it.

Like when scientists say that matter and energy are not the same thing, you say that I don't understand that they mean to say that they are? :D

You are right. I don't understand how you manage to turn around what scientist say. You accept on faith that you are right when the percentage of scientists who say that energy and matter are not the same thing dramatically exceeds those who believe in evolution. And yet you accept evolution and your belief that matter is energy on faith.

That is neither scientific nor consistent.

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²
What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept. M is mass which is simply a state of energy. Just as light and heat are. c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy.
You are basically arguing that 1liter doesn't equal 1000mililiters because 1 and 1000 aren't the same thing.

All of this is widely accepted and just like evolution you not understanding it won't make it go away.

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²

It seems to me that you are the one having problems with it. You are telling us that it should be E=M


What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept.

No, energy is something that can in fact be measured.


M is mass which is simply a state of energy.

In your belief system. If that were true then we would not have a conversion between mass and energy, because they would be one and the same.

if you are sure god did something why waste the time studying what other people say when you know god did it.

You might recall that we believe that God created the heavens and the earth in perfect order. To the Christian, science is a way to explore how that perfect order of nature works. Science isn’t the purview of those who don’t believe in God.

You do remember Copernicus, the guy that got Galileo in trouble? He was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classical scholar, translator, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat, economist and (now get this) a Catholic cleric.
You see, Catholic believe all truth, even natural science is worthy knowledge. But that was only one. Well, then of course there are the following notable Catholic scientists:

List of Jesuit scientists

François d'Aguilon
Alexius Sylvius Polonus
Armand David
Giuseppe Asclepi
Joseph Bayma
Mario Bettinus
Giuseppe Biancani
Roger Joseph Boscovich
Louis-Ovide Brunet
Nicholas Callan
Jean Baptiste Carnoy
Nicolaus Copernicus
James Cullen (mathematician)
Adelir Antonio de Carli
Jan Dzierżon
Jean-Charles de la Faille
Gyula Fényi
José Gabriel Funes
Agostino Gemelli
George Coyne
Bartolomeu de Gusmão
Michał Heller
Victor-Alphonse Huard
Ányos Jedlik
Georg Joseph Kamel
Otto Kippes
Georges Lemaître
Pierre Macq
Marcin of Urzędów
Marie-Victorin
Gregor Mendel
Jozef Murgaš
Julius Nieuwland
Paul McNally
Léon Abel Provancher
George Schoener
Gaspar Schott
George Mary Searle
Angelo Secchi
Guseppe Toaldo
Julian Tenison Woods
Giuseppe Zamboni
Francesco Zantedeschi
Category:Roman Catholic scientist-clerics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics)

But what do the superstitious know, right?

JoeT

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²
What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept. M is mass which is simply a state of energy. Just as light and heat are. c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy.
You are basically arguing that 1liter doesn't equal 1000mililiters because 1 and 1000 aren't the same thing.

All of this is widely accepted and just like evolution you not understanding it won't make it go away.

I don't have a problem with it, none what so ever. The problem is that it isn’t proof of “first cause/mover.”

JoeT

Below I repost a list by Tom, one of the posters on this board who argued that this list shows proof for "God's" existence. Although I am tolerant towards any belief a person can have, I draw a clear line between what a person BELIEVES and what is covered by OSE.

Another point is that support queries for one specific view do not mean that - even without any OSE for another view - that other view is automatically "factual". Each claim has to be OSE proved on it's own merits.

I have a link to another Q&A board to show that this list is a "true" copy, but I am not allowed to post that link here. If you want the URL PM me, and I will forward you the link.

Here is Toms list of claims :

"Blindness is no excuse".

As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In each and every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that each and every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are layed down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but canniot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.

"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists", Toms stated. But that is of course nonsense. Who decides if there was no other possible mean? Even if at this moment we do not know such mean, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God". Again : who decides if there was no natural answer? Even if at this moment we do not know such answer, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted".
There is a saying : A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer ....

A list on evolution queries is no OSE for "God's" existence. Why not post direct OSE for "God's" existence? The answer is simple : because such evidence does not exist. You can only BELIEVE in "God's" existence.

Whatever you can post on queries on whatever subject, it will never be OSE for "God's" existence. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be.

Any comments ?

:)

.

.



Cred:

Tj3 and Joe have given evidence that evolution is not factual. Read through 40 pages and the links.

Now, that may not be OSE to you, but why does it seem to irritate you that evolution is not factual? Or that there are those of us that demand the same OSE of evolution?

What do you, Cred, have as OSE of the origins of life and why we are here?

THe fact is people do believe in God and the vast majority of those that don't believe in evolution. It is fair to ask for OSE of both. Now if you subscribe to a different theory, like extraterrestrial intelligence, where is your OSE?


You discounted a theologic / Catholic evidence of God's existence because it was written by man. Well everything that you know is by man - do you have to OSE for everything a fallible human does?


As to the physics and chemistry - why are there the "laws of nature?" Who created these laws?

Cred: Tj3 and Joe have given evidence that evolution is not factual. Read through 40 pages and the links.
Now, that may not be OSE to you, but why does it seem to irritate you that evolution is not factual? Or that there are those of us that demand the same OSE of evolution?
Inthebox : you suggest that there is OSE for these queries on evolution. But I see no OSE. Just queries. And people who are willing and trying to answer these queries (although this is not the evolution board, where that should be done).

And even if there ever was OSE for these evolution queries, THAT IS NOT OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

The only thing that can be accepted as OSE for the existence of "God" is DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God".
Not Subjective Suggested Evidence (SSE).
Subjective refers to interpretation. Objective refers to factual.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

It doesn't matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter....
Energy and matter are one and the same. They are different appearances of one and the same. In the universe that can be seen everywhere. Matter appears out of - and disappears into - energy.

Energy can create matter. And matter can create energy (any nuclear explosion proves that ). In this process "create" refers to conversion.
As to energy : the universe is loaded with energy. Every cubicle micron of space is loaded with energy. That does not mean that every format of energy is usuable energy (as many here seem to interpret energy).

But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".

:rolleyes:

.

.

But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".


Thanks for this: If anyone wants to correct the gaps in their knowledge of relativity or any other physics topic, please come to the physics board, we'd be glad to explain it :)

Inthebox,
First you can't prove one hypothesis correct by proving another one wrong. That isn't the way science works.

Second evolution is a fact. Just because a group of uneducated Americans don't understand it. It doesn't make it any less factual.

Third if you want to prove god you have to prove the supernatural. Otherwise a natural solution is more likely to be the answer.

Joe,

I'll admit Catholics are much better than many Christians when it comes to scientific matters. Even the pope(old pope) has said evolution is true. Anyone that is willing to learn is great. These aren't the people I have a problem with. It's people like TJ3 who know enough to overwhelm the average person with false knowledge. So he manages to convince many people of his rhetoric not because it is true but because he appear to know more than the average person. TJ3 has proven many time he isn't here to learn he is here to spread his ideas without regard for factual evidence.

It's people like TJ3 who .... manages to convince many people of his rhetoric not because it is true but because he appears to know more than the average person. TJ3 has proven many times he isn't here to learn, he is here to spread his ideas without regard for factual evidence.
How true!!

Now : is there anyone here who can provide any DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God"??

:) :) :) :) :) :)

.

.

Energy and matter are one and the same. They are different appearances of one and the same.

Shades of the "west pointing compass" once again! In order to defend your beliefs, you will ignore science.


In the universe that can be seen everywhere. Matter appears out of - and disappears into - energy.

Dirt grows plants which can be made into food. Since one is made of the other, they must be the same, so why don't you eat dirt - dirt and food must be one and the same according to your logic!

Just because there is a conversion does not mean that they are one and the same. If they were, there would not be the speed of light squared in Einstein's equation.

You need to take a few months off this board and either read a science book on the topic or take a course in quantum physics.


But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".

Agreed. It was one of your friends that raised this point claiming that it proved that energy existed from eternity.

It's people like TJ3 who know enough to overwhelm the average person with false knowledge. So he manages to convince many people of his rhetoric not because it is true but because he appear to know more than the average person. TJ3 has proven many time he isn't here to learn he is here to spread his ideas without regard for factual evidence.

If that were true, michaelb, then it should be very easy for you to refute what I have said.

Why then, do you see the need to made unsubstantiated false accusations against me rather than provide that factual rebuttal?

How true !!!

Now : is there anyone here who can provide any DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God" ???

Sure. It comes straight out of the OP:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at around 33 degrees. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each is direct OSE, because if there is only one way for it to have occurred (since no one here has provided a second feasible approach), then God must exist, or these things would not exist.

Energy and matter are one and the same. They are different appearances of one and the same.
I think the quote goes like this “mass and energy are two forms of the same thing.” Mass is not matter rather the inertia or gravitational attraction of one body of matter to another. This distinction is critical because raw or pure energy cannot make matter. Nor does matter create itself. Thus, the hand of the creator, God, is required for the existence of nature as well as man.


I'll admit Catholics are much better than many Christians when it comes to scientific matters. Even the pope(old pope) has said evolution is true.
The Pope didn't say evolution is true. He said that believing Catholics can accept evolution as long as it doesn't reject God as the first cause or mover. He also said Catholics can accept the literal reading of creation in Genesis.

To be frank, I don't know where I stand between these two options. I don't know that the natural sciences has proven evolution to any acceptable standard, and yet I have no problem believing in the literal sense of Genesis without out any “proof”. The act of selecting evolution or creation, requires faith as a prerequisite. It's a matter of putting your faith in man (the scientist) or God or the creator. Pretty simple isn't it? I choose God – without which the purpose of life seems pretty pointless.

JoeT

Inthebox,
First you can't prove one hypothesis correct by proving another one wrong. That isn't the way science works.

Actually, science often works by means of eliminating options. For example, do you know how many of the planets today are being discovered? By looking at the effects on various suns (wobble in their rotation) and then eliminating other possibilities.


Second evolution is a fact. Just because a group of uneducated Americans don't understand it. It doesn't make it any less factual.

These uneducated Americans would include large numbers of top scientists.

…evolution is a fact. Just because a group of uneducated Americans don't understand it.
What's being said here is that those who don't agree with you are ignorant. This is elitism as well as one of the symptoms of GroupThink.

Does this mean Catholics can't join your science club?

JoeT

... Thus, the hand of the creator, God, is required for the existence of nature as well as man.
THUS?? Incorrect conclusion. The existence of "God" (with hand or without) is an issue that requires OSE itself : only DIRECT OSE can confirm that hypothesis.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Inthebox,
First you can't prove one hypothesis correct by proving another one wrong. That isn't the way science works.

Second evolution is a fact. Just because a group of uneducated Americans don't understand it. It doesn't make it any less factual.

Third if you want to prove god you have to prove the supernatural. Otherwise a natural solution is more likely to be the answer.

Joe,

I'll admit Catholics are much better than many Christians when it comes to scientific matters. Even the pope(old pope) has said evolution is true. Anyone that is willing to learn is great. These aren't the people I have a problem with. It's people like TJ3 who know enough to overwhelm the average person with false knowledge. So he manages to convince many people of his rhetoric not because it is true but because he appear to know more than the average person. TJ3 has proven many time he isn't here to learn he is here to spread his ideas without regard for factual evidence.


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/supporting-evidence-224949-43.html#post1146244


Evolution is a fact because you say so?

Where is your OSE?

Ecoli ? You could not rebut post 121 on ICR logic thread - is that your
proof"?


You can not prove evolution with OSE no more than I can bottle up God and show you "proof." It takes faith / belief in random chance and natural selection to believe in evolution.






Today’s New Reason To Believe » Blog Archive » A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath (http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2008/04/17/what/)

According to the watchmaker analogy:

Watches display design. Watches are the product of a watchmaker.

Organisms display design. Therefore, organisms are the product of a Creator


Paley’s case for the Creator only becomes stronger with every new example of a biomotor that biochemists discover



.
ScienceDirect - Structure : Recent Cyanobacterial Kai Protein Structures Suggest a Rotary Clock (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSR-4G54CFR-9&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0b9a05d2216feac11f3aaee628d024e1)


The cyanobacterial circadian clock is based on the intrinsic ATPase activity of KaiC — PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/43/16727.extract)










At least those of us who believe in God are first to say it first takes faith - then you can see the proof in His creations.

THUS ??? Incorrect conclusion. The existence of "God" (with hand or without) is an issue that requires OSE itself : only DIRECT OSE can confirm that hypothesis.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.


Well, if you’re correct just make me a plate full of matter, preferably in the form of a rare juicy stake! If you could beam it over here while it’s still hot, I’d appreciate it.

JoeT

Mass is just a measurement of how much matter.
Like 1 cup of water. It's still water there is just a cup of it. So the equation E=MC2 the M stands mass because that how you measure how much matter there is.

Don't count on us converting enough energy into mass to make you steak any time soon. Since the amount of pure energy it takes to make a mass is incredible due to the conversion rate of C=299,792,458 squared. So basically your steak would require more energy than the entire human race is capable of producing right now.

TJ3 and Inthebox,

You will never accept evolution no matter how much proof I give you. As I have said just because you ignore the evidence won't make it go away. Evolution is fact into that has been proven true by every new piece of evidence we have ever discovered. TJ3's question have reasonable answers he just won't accept evolution as the answer.

Mass is just a measurement of how much matter.

And the mass of energy is zero.

So energy is not matter.


TJ3 and Inthebox,

You will never accept evolution no matter how much proof I give you.

I used to be an evolutionist, and it was the evidence that convinced me that I was wrong.


Evolution is fact into that has been proven true by every new piece of evidence we have ever discovered. TJ3's question have reasonable answers he just won't accept evolution as the answer.

Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is not a fact and has never been proven. No matter how many times you say it, it is no more true than it was the last time that you said it.

"Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science."
(Source: Professor Macieji Giertych, B.A. M.A. from Oxon, Ph.D. from Toronto, D.Sc. From Poznan, Head of Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Science, Institute of Dendrology, Poland)

Well, if you’re correct just make me a plate full of matter, preferably in the form of a rare juicy stake! If you could beam it over here while it’s still hot, I’d appreciate it.
Jow : that is more the territory of science fiction. Captain Kirk and co...

What a pity that you failed to address that the existence of "God" is an issue that requires OSE itself , because only DIRECT OSE can confirm that hypothesis.

:)

.

.

And the mass of energy is zero. So energy is not matter.
Matter and energy are different appearances of the same thing.

But I do not see how this has anything to do with Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence. So you are off-topic.
How strange that you - who is so eager to accuse others of going off-topic when their post disagrees with you - are already almost the entire topic off-topic yourself, despite many requests to return to the topic, and show us that arguments for anything but the existence of "God" can be construed as OSE for the existence of "God" .
That is the topic.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

What a pity that you failed to address that the existence of "God" is an issue that requires OSE itself , because only DIRECT OSE can confirm that hypothesis.

Cred, you have proven over and over no matter what evidence is given, you will reject it out of hand without even providing any validation for so doing if it disagrees with you.

Tom

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms of microevolution (mutations and natural selection) could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear "NO"!
(Source: Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, Vol.210, No. 4472 (Nov 21, 1980) pp.883-887)

Matter and energy are different appearances of the same thing.

This is a tenet of your faith. But energy and matter are not the same thing.


But I do not see how this has anything to do with Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence. So you are off-topic.

This was brought up by one of your atheist friends. Interesting how you said nothing to them - oh but they were agreeing with you, and now things have gone badly for your side of the discussion.

I agree that it has nothing to do with OSE for or against the existence of God.

Tom

"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of the particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms that very period. Well it would, wouldn't it?"
(Source: Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil record", New Scientist, Vol.108,No.1485 (Dec 5,1985), p.66)

Cred,

You win cred. You win! You are the smartest of the bunch. Tell it to God at the Great White throne. You can stand before him and tell HIM there is no OSE that he even exists and therefore he CAN'T judge you according to your works! AND then you can proceed to roll your eyes over and over for effect. Maybe you can even add a "duh"? ( I was going to say that I would be the one snickering... but you know what?. I wouldn't wish what will happen next on anyone... not even YOU.)

Oops.. I'm off topic again... oh well you know us blondes...

Matter and energy are different appearances of the same thing.
This is a tenet of your faith. But energy and matter are not the same thing.
Read what I posted : I NEVER claimed they are the same thing.
I clearly stated that matter and energy are DIFFERENT APPEARANCES of the same thing.

I understand from your posts that although you claim to be an electrical engineer your scientific knowledge and understanding is minimal, but still...

As stated before :

I do not see how this has anything to do with Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
So you are OFF-TOPIC.
YOU ARE ALREADY ALMOST THIS ENTIRE LEAD OFF TOPIC YOURSELF, despite many requests to return to the topic, and show us that arguments for anything but the existence of "God" can be construed as OSE for the existence of "God" .
That is the topic.

Just blaming someone else for doing that, and than follow that person by replying off-topic is simply hypocrite , implausible , and haughty.

So can we now all get back on-topic, please ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


.

.

Read what I posted : I NEVER claimed they are the same thing.
I clearly stated that matter and energy are DIFFERENT APPEARANCES of the same thing.

I have a black car - you have a blue car - different appearances of the same thing.

Energy and matter are NOT the same thing, nor is it just an matter of "appearance".


I understand from your posts that although you claim to be an electrical engineer your scientific knowledge and understanding is minimal, but still...

Cred, I got a real degree and a real license, not one from high school :D

I do not mind someone who thinks magnetic compass points west thinking that my scientific knowledge is much different than theirs!


As stated before :

[I]I do not see how this has anything to do with Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

Agreed. It is your atheist friends who brought forward this argument, and I agree that the argument does nothing to support their claim. I am glad that you agree, and I hope that you and your friends will get back on topic now!

And the mass of energy is zero.

So energy is not matter.

I don't know why or care any more why you don't get this. I'm just going to go with there is something wrong with you. From your own post

In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.
The reason it says this is because matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. If you won't trust your own post your beyond my help on this.


I used to be an evolutionist, and it was the evidence that convinced me that I was wrong.
I'm sorry that someone gave you bad information.



Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is not a fact and has never been proven. No matter how many times you say it, it is no more true than it was the last time that you said it.

"Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science."
(Source: Professor Macieji Giertych, B.A. M.A. from Oxon, Ph.D. from Toronto, D.Sc. From Poznan, Head of Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Science, Institute of Dendrology, Poland)

One guy who despite his degrees doesn't know what he is talking about does not make a controversy. The vast majority of biologist feel that the facts point to evolution. With good reason because all of the evidence points to evolution the only people that feel there is a controversy are people who are trying to push their religious agenda.



Actually, science often works by means of eliminating options. For example, do you know how many of the planets today are being discovered? By looking at the effects on various suns (wobble in their rotation) and then eliminating other possibilities.

Right they assumed it was because of planets not that it was caused by a giant can of cheese whiz. They didn't rule out a giant can of cheese whiz but they still discounted it. Under you logic since they haven't ruled it out they should consider it to be a possibility. However until we find a giant can of cheese whiz orbiting a planet that would be stupid to assume. So until we prove the super natural you can't use it for any cause because planets make more since that can of cheese whiz.

So as Cred says you want us to take you seriously prove the super natural. Disproving a natural solution doesn't do anything for your cause it only means that there is a different natural solution

Tell it to God at the Great White throne.
Tell it to WHOM ?
You BELIEVE that "God" exists. But does "God" exists ?
You can not even provide OSE for the existence of "God"!


...well you know us blondes...
Everyone can post a pic on the board. So are you blond? That would explain a lot !

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

So as Cred says you want us to take you seriously prove the super natural. Disproving a natural solution doesn't do anything for your cause it only means that there is a different natural solution
Good point michealb, and that is actually on-topic !

:)

.

.

I don't know why or care any more why you don't get this. I'm just going to go with there is something wrong with you.

I don't share your faith that energy is matter. I accept the scientific findings regarding the nature of energy and matter. That is why I don't get why you hold to your views. We showed you the scientific information even, but for some reason you reject it in favour of your own ideas.


I'm sorry that someone gave you bad information

Indeed - but I have the right information now!


One guy who despite his degrees doesn't know what he is talking about does not make a controversy.

You tell us that scientists don't understand the nature of energy and matter, and you tell us that biologists don't know their subject matter either.

Wow - and what are your credentials that give you the authority to say that they are all wrong?


The vast majority of biologist feel that the facts point to evolution.

But not that evolution is a fact as you claimed. Of course at one time the majority of scientists believed the earth was flat and I have an old encyclopedia from the very early 20th century that says that rockets can never carry anything larger than a basketball.

The majority is not always right - that is why scientists do not always agree and continue to do research in various areas.


With good reason because all of the evidence points to evolution the only people that feel there is a controversy are people who are trying to push their religious agenda.

ALL the evidence does not point to evolution. The best statement that you could honestly make is that some evidence could be interpreted as pointing to evolution as a possible method (assuming of course that you are referring to macroevolution, and not microevolution which is a fact). But there is a great deal of evidence that does not point to evolution, but rather causes a great deal of difficultly for evolutionists.


Right they assumed it was because of planets not that it was caused by a giant can of cheese whiz. They didn't rule out a giant can of cheese whiz but they still discounted it. Under you logic since they haven't ruled it out they should consider it to be a possibility. However until we find a giant can of cheese whiz orbiting a planet that would be stupid to assume. So until we prove the super natural you can't use it for any cause because planets make more since that can of cheese whiz.


It appears that you are not aware of how scientists make these determinations. Maybe this site will help you understand the basics:

Planet Quest: Science - Finding Planets (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/science/finding_planets.cfm)

Tom

"The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data are ignored."
(Source: Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol.92, No.1280 (Nov 19.1981),pp.522-523)

I don't share ....
PLEASE GET BACK ON-TOPIC : "Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?"

:rolleyes:

.

.

I know very well how they find planets. However I am sure that not one of them ruled out the idea that it could be a giant can of cheese whiz with the same properties as a planet orbiting the planet instead of planet. By your logic if it can't be ruled out it has to be considered.

As I have stated before you can not prove the supernatural by ruling out the natural. Even if you could my theory that the big foots with fairy wings did it would have just as much validity as yours.

Meet us half way present some proof of the super natural. An angle wing, the Holy Grail, moses staff that turns to snakes, some talking burning bush, ghosts, demons, spirits, healed amputee, Bigfoot, alien abductions, lizard-men, Loch ness monster, the jersey devil, the devil, fairies, leprechauns, a yeti, Eden, a talking snake, or god. All you have to do it proof one of these. You probably know they all exist so impart some of that on use how you came to know these exist so we can do the same.

By the way love how you skipped over that whole part of your own post contradicting yourself wise move if something proves you wrong just ignore and it will go away.

PLEASE GET BACK ON-TOPIC : "Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question above was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at around 33 degrees. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.

I know very well how they find planets. However I am sure that not one of them ruled out the idea that it could be a giant can of cheese whiz with the same properties as a planet orbiting the planet instead of planet. By your logic if it can't be ruled out it has to be considered.

It is you who came up with the silliness about cheese. But I am glad to see that you accept that astronomers at least know their jobs despite your claims that biologists and quantum physicists don't.


As I have stated before you can not prove the supernatural by ruling out the natural.

I never said that. As I said at the start, I am quite prepared to approach this by dealing solely with that which can be proven scientifically. It is you and your fellow atheists who brought the supernatural into it.


By the way love how you skipped over that whole part of your own post contradicting yourself wise move if something proves you wrong just ignore and it will go away.

Huh?? What the heck are you talking about?

Tom

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. ...There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
(Source: Evolutionist Dr.Paul Pierre-Grasse, former President of the French Academie des Sciences and the scientist who held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years, "Evolution of Living Organisms" (1977), p.103)

As you well know
Once more I have reported you for deliberately posting off-topic, despite you having been requested not to do that.

Why are you trying to get this topic closed for running off-topic?

:(

.

.

Once more I have reported you for deliberately posting off-topic, despite you having been requested not to do that.

Why are you trying to get this topic closed for running off-topic?

It would be odd to see the OP being off-topic, but I hope that you know that you are in violation for posting that.

Deleted (double)

To all :

Please note that the individual queries on evolution were an example of false logic.

How can queries and answers for one line of thought be suggested as OSE for another entire different line of thought?

Can anyone post any reasoning why queries on evolution should be considered to be OSE for the existence of "God"??

:)

.
.

One guy who despite his degrees doesn't know what he is talking about does not make a controversy. The vast majority of biologist feel that the facts point to evolution. With good reason because all of the evidence points to evolution the only people that feel there is a controversy are people who are trying to push their religious agenda.

I’ve run into this mode of thinking several times in my profession, an arrogance that underlies a wish for a predetermined outcome. It’s done by lining-up a list of scientist saying “we have a consensus” you must conform to our ideas. To be with “The Group” offers insulation from genuine objections. It reduces the requirement for rigorous proof and procedures in data collection; it shields sloppy logic in the conclusions or an out and out jump to conclusion, and shields against challenges.

Irving Janis - Groupthink:

“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Are you so stuck on scientific consensus that any other line of inquiry becomes a challenge to your faith science? I'm wondering how much FAITH you are willing to put in man?

There hasn’t been a single scientific proof put forward that would explain away the ontological postulates of first cause or movement and life coming from space monkeys was taken as a joke. It was a joke wasn’t it?

JoeT

Please note that the individual queries on evolution were an example ogf false logic.

Still trying to keep people from examining the facts, Cred?

Those who love truth do not fear the truth.

I’ve run into this mode of thinking .....
Joe : please keep to the actual topic here :

Can queries and answers on evolution (i.e. one line of thought) be considered OSE for the existence of "God" (i.e. another entire different line of thought) ?

:)

.

.

Joe : please keep to the actual topic here :

Can queries and answers on evolution (i.e. one line of thought) be considered OSE for the the existence of "God" (i.e. another entire different line of thought) ?

:)

.

.


The question is “loaded,” only you can determine what’s on topic and what’s not. And of course when ontological logic is put forward, it doesn’t meet you standard of objective supported evidence. Buy the way, is there any credible source that provides a definition of “objective supported evidence” or is it just one of those things that just sounds good?

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

I’ve run into this mode of thinking several times in my profession, an arrogance that underlies a wish for a predetermined outcome. It’s done by lining-up a list of scientist saying “we have a consensus” you must conform to our ideas. To be with “The Group” offers insulation from genuine objections. It reduces the requirement for rigorous proof and procedures in data collection; it shields sloppy logic in the conclusions or an out and out jump to conclusion, and shields against challenges.

Irving Janis - Groupthink:

“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Are you so stuck on scientific consensus that any other line of inquiry becomes a challenge to your faith science? I'm wondering how much FAITH you are willing to put in man?

There hasn’t been a single scientific proof put forward that would explain away the ontological postulates of first cause or movement and life coming from space monkeys was taken as a joke. It was a joke wasn’t it?

JoeT

Not space monkeys big foots with fairy wings there is a difference. :) It's a joke to highlight the absurdness of claiming god as the first cause until you prove he exists. Otherwise you can just claim something did something without evidence. I suppose you would have thought it would have made more sense if I had said the Titans created the universe as the Romans thought but unless I have proof of the Titans they make as much sense as big foots with fairy wings because neither one exists without proof.

I find it very interesting that someone arguing for religion would use the group think argument. Since this is the very thing that allows religion to exist in our modern world.

The difference in science is though that anything will be heard as long as you have the evidence to back it up. I have said many times I would love to be the guy that proves evolution to be false. Every biologist I can think of would love to be the person to prove evolution false. If you did you would be a house hold name for hundreds of years. So trust me if there was any real evidence that evolution was false there is plenty of incentive for scientists to put it out there. However the only people that say evolution is wrong are people of a religious background. If there really was a controversy on whether evolution was a fact or not you would have tons of scientist releasing other natural solutions even if they were far fetched scientists would still release them just to make sure they were first. As I said though the only people questioning evolution is a handful of very religious people who had their mind made up before they even began studying the subjects.

So to recap you must have proof of something before you can use it to explain something else.

So to recap you must have proof of something before you can use it to explain something else.

This applies also to the multitude of assumptions that macroevolution is based upon.

NEWSFLASH!! OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD COMING SOON TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

I don't know how old various ones of you are, but if you live long enough you will get your ose. When millions world-wide disappear suddenly then you will KNOW that God the Father has sent Jesus to call His children to meet Him in the air.

File this information in your memory bank, as it will be absolutely CRITICAL to your survival at that time.

When millions world-wide disappear suddenly then you will KNOW ...
Galvy : I don't need fairytales anymore. I did read them years ago to my children, and read them again to my grandchildren when I was with them. But for myself I prefer a science-based book or a good detective...

Surely what you posted is not OSE for the existence of "God"?
All you posted is some watery extract of Pascal's Wager - an already many years ago rejected and invalid wild claim.

As to the disappearance of these millions you mentioned :

In the US banking and sharetrade business many thousands of millions have recently already disappeared...

After that it was suggested that the outcome of last Tuesday's elections would result in many millions of US citizens disappearing over the borders...

Does that mean that the process you refer to has already started??

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

Galvy : I don't need fairytales anymore. I did read them years ago to my children, and read them again to my grandchildren when I was with them. But for myself I prefer a science-based book or a good detective ....

Then why do you consistently reject the science when it is presented?

For example, I did not see your response to this post:


A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

When you go can you please make sure you take all of the religious people with you and not just the Christians.
Otherwise they will just claim that their god wiped you out and could you imagine how hard it would to prove that wrong.

When you go can you please make sure you take all of the religious people with you and not just the Christians.
Otherwise they will just claim that their god wiped you out and could you imagine how hard it would to prove that wrong.

Sorry, Michael, but there is only one way to be saved:

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV

When we are rapture, all those who rejected the Saviour remain behind. It is my hope and paryer that a few as possible are left behind, but scripture suggests that only a remnant will be saved. I am hoping that you will some day receive the truth and be amongst that remnant.

When you go can you please make sure you take all of the religious people with you and not just the Christians.
Otherwise they will just claim that their god wiped you out and could you imagine how hard it would to prove that wrong.
Imagine how nice it would be...

(At least) all Christians suddenly disappear... All 2 billion of them. Keeping in line with their ideas, most of them will end up in a very hot place, and only small amount of them will find their way up the high road...

Most hypocrites and most intolerant and insincere people gone...
No more religious infighting and unfair treatment of those remaining...
At last an excellent and effective way to reduce global warming...

I wonder though if "God" (may "God" exist) really will be happy with these few incoming troublemakers...

I wish "God" all the strength that is possible. "God" will need it...

===

Now where were we ?

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

:)

.

.

Imagine how nice it would be ......

(At least) all Christians suddenly disappear .... All 2 billion of them. Keeping in line with their ideas, most of them will end up in a very hot place, and only small amount of them will find their way up the high road ....

I see Cred, hatred of those who disagree with you. At least you are being more open about your motives.

Now where were we ?

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God" ???

Right that is where we were.

I did not see your response to this post:


A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:TRILOBITE EYES
You have been reported for going off-topic.

Back to the topic :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

You have been reported for going off-topic.

Back to the topic :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God" ???

Why, I ponder, do you keep asking the question, and avoiding the answer?

I did not see your response to this post:


A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

Back to the topic :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

:)

.

.

Back to the topic :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God" ???

Keep asking and I will be happy to keep answering. Why, I ponder, do you keep asking the question, and avoiding the answer?

I did not see your response to this post:

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the end result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much moreso in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

Tj3 : you have been reported again for topic abuse...

Back to the topic :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

:)

.

.

Tj3 : you have been reported again for topic abuse ....

Back to the topic :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God" ???

Yes, and in fact the question has been answered many many times over the years.


Keep asking and I will be happy to keep answering. Why, I ponder, do you keep asking the question, and avoiding the answer?

I did not see your response to this post:

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the end result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much moreso in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

Tj3 : I could not display better how intolerant and hypocrite you are, than you do yourself with your deliberate topic disturbing posts.

Is this your approach also in your activities in or with the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and/or the Signs of Scripture Conference?

Back to the topic question :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"?? "

:)

.

.

Back to the topic question :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God" ???"

If you took a moment to read, you would see that the question has been answered. But for some reason, you either appear to fear the answer, or wish to ignore the answer.

Those who love truth do not fear the truth.

Keep asking and I will be happy to keep answering. Why, I ponder, do you keep asking the question, and avoiding the answer?

I did not see your response to this post:

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the end result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much moreso in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

Back to the topic question :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

:)

.

.

TJ3
The reason the watch maker argument is not a good argument because life reproduces on it's own with differences. The watch doesn't. So if you could find a life form that doesn't reproduce and pops in out of nowhere you would have valid argument but that is not the case so you don't.

And as far a Trilobite eyes. You don't understand how evolution works so you don't understand the things you read about it. If you would like to start your own thread I'm sure many people here would be happy to teach you about evolution.

TJ3
The reason the watch maker argument is not a good argument because life reproduces on it's own with differences. The watch doesn't.


Your argument is self-defeating. You are saying that because a living creature is even more complex than a watch means that, though the watch is evidence of design and a manufacturer, that the creature isn't. This would be akin to saying that a Macintosh computer is evidence of a desiogner, but a more complex system such as a supercomputer is not.

Or because it reproduces on its own, that computer viruses came about naturally with no programmer involved.

That argument makes no sense.


And as far a Trilobite eyes. You don't understand how evolution works so you don't understand the things you read about it.

So your argument with respect to the trilobite eye is that only you understand it, and the rest of mankind doesn't (have you read the articles? Scientists cannot explain either).

Back to the topic question :

Can any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever be valid as OSE for the existence of "God" ???

Yes, and I have done so a number of times. If you took a moment to read, you would see that the question has been answered. But for some reason, you either appear to fear the answer, or wish to ignore the answer.

Those who love truth do not fear the truth.

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the end result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much moreso in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

I'm confused about what you're asking about the trilobyte eye or why you're repeating it. There seems to be no question in there. What is the problem with them having evolved a more advanced eye than a human? Octopi have more advanced eyes than us too...

TJ3
The reason the watch maker argument is not a good argument because life reproduces on its own with differences. The watch doesn't. So if you could find a life form that doesn't reproduce and pops in out of nowhere you would have valid argument but that is not the case so you don't.

If life creates its own, who created the first life? If as you suggest, it evolved, how and when did this proto-life first become aware it should reproduce, when and what chemical reaction caused it to become conscious of its surrounding? What chemical reaction caused human’s to become self-aware. If it’s by chance, why didn’t any of the other species become self-aware? If it’s by chance wouldn’t traits of self-awareness be evident in the top branches of all species? Darwinism hasn’t answered these questions. Thus it’s reasonable to assume Darwinism isn’t the answerer. Yet, faith in God does provide that answer.

The watch analogy isn’t about whether the watch created itself, but that a maker must be present because of the intricacy of the watch not because of the proliferation watches.


JoeT

Jehovah is the true god

I'm confused about what you're asking about the trilobyte eye or why you're repeating it. There seems to be no question in there. What is the problem with them having evolved a more advanced eye than a human? Octopi have more advanced eyes than us too...

There is no question because it is an answer. I am repeating it because, for some strange reason, Cred keeps repeating the question. There is no problem with having an advanced eye, nor did I say that there was.

If life creates its own, who created the first life? If as you suggest, it evolved, how and when did this proto-life first become aware it should reproduce, when and what chemical reaction caused it to become conscious of its surrounding?
Dear Joe : life evolved. First life form was not self aware. It will have been extremely simple, without any specialization (no DNA, no RNA).

It's actually a chicken and egg situation. The latest research findings suggest that first life was most likely and highly possibly centered on one of the following hypothesi : the clay model and the emerging hypercycles model.

I just posted a new topic on the Other Science Board named : "Abiogenesis - origin of first life forms (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-science/abiogenesis-origin-first-life-forms-279319.html#post1367279)"
On this board the question is not about evolution, but if any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever can be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

So do you want to debate evolution ? Go to the Other Science Board. And if you like to debate the OSE for the existence of "God"? than do that here in this topic.

:)

.

.

Dear Joe : life evolved. First life form was not self aware. It will have been extremely simple, without any specialization (no DNA, no RNA).

Please show us your validation for this claim or is this simply something that you BELIEVE to be true.

Dear Joe : life evolved. First life form was not self aware. It will have been extremely simple, without any specialization (no DNA, no RNA).

It's actually a chicken and egg situation. The latest research findings suggest that first life was most likely and highly possibly centered on one of the following hypothesi : the clay model and the emerging hypercycles model.
Get real; this scenario is no more correct than the king of gods (Zeus) is on Mount Olympus throwing thunderbolts at Poseidon.

Speak for yourself; I’m no chicken’s son. My momma is a chicken hawk; hawk son; that’s Henry-JoeT Hawk, a rootin’, tootin’, pop-gun, shootin’ chickenhawk! I evolved this way - heck, if man can do it, us chickenhawks can do it.


So do you want to debate evolution?
No.

Why should I debate the social pseudo-science myth?

The important thing is that God exists.

JoeT

So do you want to debate evolution?No. Why should I debate the social pseudo-science myth?
The important thing is that God exists. JoeT
If that is what you want, than why do you discuss evolution related arguments here in this topic?

This topic is about validity : that any query or answer on any question or list of questions can not be held as OSE for another subject, in this case the existence of "God".

:)

.

.

If that is what you want, than why do you discuss evolution related arguments here in this topic?

Interesting. It is the atheists who keep injecting evolution into the topic. My posts asked if there were "natural" explanations. But Cred, maybe you are admitting that evolution is the only natural approach that you can imagine, so for you, it comes down to an examination of evolution.


This topic is about validity : that any query or answer on any question or list of questions can not be held as OSE for another subject, in this case the existence of "God".

Actually, it was the atheists who brought God into this. I wsaid that I was quite willing to discuss it solely on the basis of what could be proven scientifically, but no atheist would agree to that approach.

And as for discussing the validity of the evdiences presented on this thread, you avoid discussing that also.

If that is what you want, than why do you discuss evolution related arguments here in this topic?
This topic is about validity : that any query or answer on any question or list of questions cannot be held as OSE for another subject, in this case the existence of "God".
It’s funny you ask for Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and yet when presented with that evidence you reject it because it doesn’t have a particular scientific flavor. There doesn’t seem to be any bone a Christian can throw. Conversely we find that “[s]ometimes the professor with his bone becomes almost as dangerous as a dog with his bone. And the dog at least does not deduce a theory from it, proving that mankind is going to the dogs-or that it came from them. … On the assumption of that evolutionary connection (a connection which I am not in the least concerned to deny), the really arresting and remarkable fact is the comparative absence of any such remains recording that connection at that point. The sincerity of Darwin really admitted this; and that is how we came to use such a term as the Missing Link. But the dogmatism of Darwinian has been too strong for agnosticism of Darwin; and men have fallen into turning this entirely negative term into a positive image. They talk of searching for the habits and habitat of the Missing Link; as if one were to talk of being on friendly terms with the gap in a narrative or the hole in an argument, of taking a walk with a nonsequitur or dining with an undistributed middle. In this sketch, therefore, of man in his relation to certain religious and historical problems, I shall waste no further space on these speculations on the nature of man before he became man. His body may have been evolved from the brutes; but we know nothing of any such transition that throws the smallest light upon his soul as it has shown itself in history.” C. K. Chesterton

JoeT

I haven't seen anyone but religious people claim to know for sure how life began. As I have said we have hypothesises but no theory yet. All that proves is that we don't have a theory yet.

And all that Trilobite eyes means is that evolution can go in very far in one direction and then dead end and never go that far again. All the proves is that evolution isn't a guided process.

The reason science favors the natural solutions is because natural solutions have been proven before. Prove a supernatural solution and that will get considored as well.

And JoeT777 if you ever hope to understand why evolutions is such a great theory you need to leave the elitism behind. Humans aren't that special. We are not the predetermined result of evolution. We are an oddity of it. I also challenge the idea that we are any more self aware than other animal of intellect.

And JoeT777 if you ever hope to understand why evolutions is such a great theory you need to leave the elitism behind. Humans aren't that special. We are not the predetermined end result of evolution. We are an oddity of it. I also challenge the idea that we are any more self aware than other animal of intellect.
Man, endowed with the uniqueness of body and soul, is an oddity? You would lower man to a depraved animal, an oddity, and rise up science in its place? Forgive me if I forgo such an education; I can do without such greatness, or should I say lowliness.

JoeT

And all that Trilobite eyes means is that evolution can go in very far in one direction and then dead end and never go that far again. All the proves is that evolution isn't a guided process.

It proves nothing about evolution. Indeed evolution cannot even provide a decent hypothesis about trilobite eyes.


The reason science favors the natural solutions is because natural solutions have been proven before.

No natural solution for creation of life or species change has been proven. That has gone nowhere beyond a claim by a few folk such as yourself.

It proves nothing about evolution. Indeed evolution cannot even provide a decent hypothesis about trilobite eyes.
I just did, there the environment caused trilobites to evolve advanced eye sight however such refinement wasn't successful so trilobites died out. It's that simple.


No natural solution for creation of life or species change has been proven. That has gone nowhere beyond a claim by a few folk such as yourself.

I have said more times than I can count that there is no definitive information on how the first life formed the only thing we can deduce is that it was a natural process because we have no examples of supernatural processes.

Now as far as species change I dare you to define what prevents many small changes adding up to large changes over time. I suggest you make your own thread for that though.

It’s funny you ask for Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and yet when presented with that evidence you reject it because it doesn’t have a particular scientific flavor.
Pardon me Joe, but I have NEVER seen any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
NEVER here in this topic, NEVER in any other topic, NEVER in any other religious discussion board, NEVER on the Internet, NEVER anywhere else.
Dear Joe : you seem incapable of understanding the difference between religious Subjective Supported Evidence ("I believe that ....") and Objective Supported Evidence (OSE).

If - as you suggest - there is any OSE for the existence of "God", than why are Christian fundamentalists so extremely active HIDING that evidence behind babble , suggestions, and wild claims?
Let's see than that OSE Joe : show me that OSE!!


There doesn’t seem to be any bone a Christian can throw.
What "bone" are you talking about, Joe ?
I never asked for bones. Just some Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence will do fine here in this topic !
Show me that OSE , Joe!!


... Darwin really admitted this ...
Sorry Joe : Darwin NEVER suggested that he did not BELIEVE in "God".
So whatever Darwin admitted about his theory, he NEVER suggested that "God" did not exist.
Darwin's theory is not about "God" not existing. It is about how the earliest simple life forms changed (evolved) over time to what exists now.

This topic is not about Darwin. It is not about evolution. It is about the question if queries and replies to these queries (as example a list of queries on evolution were used) can validly be used as some format of OSE for the existence of "God". So your above comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.

:)

.

.

Pardon me Joe, but I have NEVER seen any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

This was the argument that you gave on the other site! You must have lost your glasses again!

I just did, there the environment caused trilobites to evolve advanced eye sight however such refinement wasn't successful so trilobites died out. It's that simple.

You wrote your claim - the proof is where?


I have said more times than I can count that there is no definitive information on how the first life formed

But I did not ask for proof - as I said many times - I asked you for a feasible way that it could come about naturally. For some reason you keep wanting to change the question.


the only thing we can deduce is that it was a natural process because we have no examples of supernatural processes.

That is not the scientific approach. Rule something out because you don't believe it.


Now as far as species change I dare you to define what prevents many small changes adding up to large changes over time. I suggest you make your own thread for that though.

I don't have to prove what it is that prevents it from happening. You believe that it does and you claim that it has been proven - so that means that you have indisputable evidence of species change by means of evolution.

Where is it?

Pardon me Joe, but I have NEVER seen any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
NEVER here in this topic, NEVER in any other topic, NEVER in any other religious discussion board, NEVER on the Internet, NEVER anywhere else.
Dear Joe : you seem incapable of understanding the difference between religious Subjective Supported Evidence ("I believe that ....") and Objective Supported Evidence (OSE).

I've offered empirical evidence in the linked post. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-11.html#post1349606) You've rejected intuitive evidence given by others; in effect wanting God placed in your hands for inspection.


If - as you suggest - there is any OSE for the existence of "God", than why are Christian fundamentalists so extremely active HIDING that evidence behind babble , suggestions, and wild claims?

I haven't babbled nor made wild claims for God. Since God is a spiritual being, it takes a spiritual knowledge to come to know him. You've rejected this out of hand.


What "bone" are you talking about, Joe ?
I never asked for bones. Just some Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence will do fine here in this topic ! Show me that OSE , Joe !!!
Open your eyes.


Sorry Joe : Darwin NEVER suggested that he did not BELIEVE in "God".
So whatever Darwin admitted about his theory, he NEVER suggested that "God" did not exist.
Darwin's theory is not about "God" not existing. It is about how the earliest simple life forms changed (evolved) over time to what exists now.
This topic is not about Darwin. It is not about evolution. It is about the question if queries and replies to these queries (as example a list of queries on evolution were used) can validly be used as some format of OSE for the existence of "God". So your above comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.


Darwinian theories have been used by the agnostic to show that there is no God; life (matter) creates itself. Consequently, say the agnostics, there is no need of God. Some, including myself, have shown that such theories are unproven. As previously stated, (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-24.html#post1354692)if evolutionary claims are true as science requires, conformation of iterated tests will show 95% probability of conformation on each test. Primordial soup, the genesis of the Darwin's theory, has yet to be proven in a single test of prebio atmosphere. If the primary postulate isn't true then none of the remaining postulates can be true. Thus we can conclude that all the postulates of the theory are incorrect.

Since Darwin's theory is incorrect, only one alternative remains; life was created by God.



JoeT

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

And as I said you can't claim god did it till you prove god. Otherwise I can say it was done by bigfoots with fairy wings and you can't prove me wrong based on your method of evidence.

This has nothing to do with my belief in the super natural. It is simply a matter of evidence. Every solution we have ever found has been a natural solution even things that at one time were attributed to the supernatural were found to have natural solutions. So until you prove one supernatural solution you can't invoke it when talking about science.

So once again the only evidence for god is evidence of the super natural. Prove ghosts, goblins, demons, devils, angels, or god himself. Then we will talk about using them in scientific theory until then your wrong...

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

Once again, one does not need to know the full answer to be able to assess whether something is feasible.

That is true. You just have warped sense of what is feasible compared to 99% of the scientists out there. You believe a supernatural solution that hasn't been proven makes more sense than a natural solution that hasn't been proven. Then try to say your supernatural solution is the one and only solution.

Your ideas and concepts show no grounding in reality or science as the rest of us know it. It only shows us that regardless of how far you have to shy away from reality you will go there to farther your religious agenda. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that your wrong you won't admit it.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

And as I said you can't claim god did it till you prove god. Otherwise I can say it was done by bigfoots with fairy wings and you can't prove me wrong based on your method of evidence.

This has nothing to do with my belief in the super natural. It is simply a matter of evidence. Every solution we have ever found has been a natural solution even things that at one time were attributed to the supernatural were found to have natural solutions. So until you prove one supernatural solution you can't invoke it when talking about science.

So once again the only evidence for god is evidence of the super natural. Prove ghosts, goblins, demons, devils, angels, or god himself. Then we will talk about using them in scientific theory until then your wrong...

Evolution's New Wrinkle: Proteins With 'Cruise Control' Act Like Adaptive Machines (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111183039.htm)







"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. "Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."



How did these proteins develop these abilities in the first place?





... certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices.




Note the comparison to man made intelligent design




The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."





again the comparison to man made intelligent design and the if







Michael, don't you understand how factual science brings up more and more questions of evolution that cannot only be answered by terms like "if" or "theory". Evolution is not a fact - evn these scientists would term it as such. Evolution is conditional upon a "ifs" and science is discovering more and more design and complexity that can't be factually attributed to the THEORY of evolution.

You should really read the entire article before you post them otherwise the end of the article might not support your position


The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature.
Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the generation of complex biological structures. "Such principles are fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity."

That is a self interested statement - he cannot factually explain the "pivotal juncture."

The actual facts are evidence of design - their analogy to cruise cntrol or thermostats and other man made thought out designs betrays what they truly think

The analogies are there to make it easier for you to understand what the proteins do, not to imply that they are designed.

You unfornately you used your own reasoning instead of theirs. Forgive me if I assume they say what they mean instead of injecting my own opinion into their heads as your doing.

I used quoted their own words.

Now I ask, how did proteins, theoretically a product of evolution,

1] develop the ability to control the actual process that controls them? Are proteins "intelligent" controlling their destiny like we humans do in genetics and medicine?

2] how did this ability of proteins to "control evolution" get translated to a genetic code that can be reproduced? Which came first the protein or the genetic code? HOw?

Modern science is showing evidence that only brings more and more questions about evolution. That is what the article is about.





Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution? (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm)

These scientists cannot agree either on the "facts"

Ladies and Gentlemen : can we please get back on-topic again ?

Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Can any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not about the existence of "God" itself be used as valid OSE for the existence of "God"?? Or does valid OSE for the existence of "God" have to be about the existence of "God", and not about anything else ?

Or is the existence of "God" something you just BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE ?

:)

.

.

Inthebox,

That is great that 16 people can get together and talk about other theories than evolution and if they come up with any proof I'll welcome it. However until they have proof their opinion is simply their opinion. Also why would you bring philosophers to a science meeting? Something's fishy about that...

Regardless though disproving evolution doesn't prove god. It just disproves evolution.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

Inthebox, That is great that 16 people can get together and talk about other theories than evolution and if they come up with any proof I'll welcome it.

It was a consensus! Thus we can conclude that 98% of all experiments show that Darwinism is wrong – since 100% of these 16 said so. Isn’t that the way science works?

Scientific theories are changing to fit the evidence? Heresy! :rolleyes:

Scientific theories are changing to fit the evidence? Heresy! :rolleyes:

Yeah! Heresy!

Let’s see the mutable word of science or the immutable word of God; which is better? Which would I rather believe in? I’m at a loss Cap, help me out.

JoeT

Yeah! Heresy!

Let’s see the mutable word of science or the immutable word of God; which is better? Which would I rather believe in? I’m at a loss Cap, help me out.

JoeT

The answer is the mutable word of science.

I don't know if given a choice, I'd think I'd rather live in a fantasy world. My brain just won't let me.

That is true. You just have warped sense of what is feasible compared to 99% of the scientists out there. You believe a supernatural solution that hasn't been proven makes more sense than a natural solution that hasn't been proven. Then try to say your supernatural solution is the one and only solution.

Michael,

I wonder why yopu keep twisting what I said. Let me say it again. I am prepared to discuss ithis issue SOLELY on the basis of what can be shown scientifically. And for some reason, it is the atheists who keep wanting to deviate away from the science basis for the discussion.


Your ideas and concepts show no grounding in reality or science as the rest of us know it.

Personal attacks prove nothing other that you are not prepared to discuss this issue on a purely scientific basis. I have validated each of my points, and you keep backing away from using science.

I would love to have a debate based solely on science the problem is your definition of what is evidence and what is not does not meet the same standards as the scientific community has.
Even when you are proven 100% wrong you don't admit it. So what's the point of arguing with you. If your not going to learn anything by me doing it.

I have given you the evidence from the link to science daily article.

Is there a proven "natural" explanation to the genetic code, proteins that self regulate, how these proteins came to be?. they're super natural as you say.

And the link to the phd's that could not agree on evolution - what is your academic background that qualifies you to supercede phds? Or is it your faith in evolution that leads you to the conclusions that you reach?

Yours truly - BS bio / medical - Christian

I wonder why you keep twisting what I said.... I am prepared to discuss .... of what can be shown scientifically.... atheists who keep wanting to deviate away from the science basis.... Personal attacks prove nothing .... I have validated each of my points .... you keep backing away from using science.
Typical Tj3...

Tj3 refers to opponents and insists on others twisting of what was said, but often does exactly the same.

Tj3 offers to discuss the issue on a scientific basis, but posts statements that are at best pseudo-scientific and that refer to something entirely different.

Tj3 posts deliberately and repeatedly off-topic, and laments that "Atheists" want to deviate away from the science basis for "the discussion" - when he means his discussion (which is deliberately off-topic).

Tj3 "cries" that personal attacks prove nothing.. but follows that frequently with posts that have a core of personal revenge and intolerance, and that are in effect personal attacks themselves.

Tj3 claims that he has validated each of his points, but in effect never does that, and shies away the moment you request him to back-up his wild claims with valid evidence (OSE).

Tj3 suggests that others keep backing away from using science, when he himself refuses to provide OSE for his own wild claims, and when he provides his pseudo-scientific "back-up" it is not for the topic, but for an entire different and off-topic item.

You would almost expect this is in that respect a copy of the "What is truth" topic.

Note that this topic is called : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Also note that this topic in effect is questioning if any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not itself about the existence of "God", can be used as VALID OSE for the existence of "God".

I strongly suggest that any claim towards the existence of "God" has to be DIRECT and VALID OSE for the existence of "God", and for nothing else.

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

Ladies and Gentlemen : can we please get back on-topic again ?


:)

.

.

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him. He believes that there is no God, and yet refuses to provide any OSE. He attacks those that do provide OSE for a creator, and refuses to actually engage on the topic.

When people do post evidence that disagrees with him, he tries to change the topic.

Yes, can we get back on the topic?

How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him.
I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

Next to that I always try to get back to the topic itself, and restart with the original topic question, which is here :

Note that this topic is called : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Also note that this topic in effect is questioning if any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not itself about the existence of "God", can be used as VALID OSE for the existence of "God".

I strongly suggest that any claim towards the existence of "God" has to be DIRECT and VALID OSE for the existence of "God", and for nothing else.

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

So all : can we please get back on-topic again ?

:)

.

.

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him. He believes that there is no God, and yet refuses to provide any OSE. He attacks those that do provide OSE for a creator, and refuses to actually engage on the topic.


You can't provide OSE for something that doesn't exist that why you won't get any atheist to prove that there isn't a god. It's just like bigfoot. Even if we cut down every forest in the world you would still have people that say we didn't account for his invisibility powers. Which makes it impossible to prove a negative of that scale.

You also can't prove your supernatural hypothesis by disproving a natural one. Any scientific theory has to stand on its own.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

Ho hum... same old same old.

Cred, if you spent half the time doing your research and dealing with the topic as you do posting abuse, you would be a much stronger contributor and a much stronger defending of your faith in evolution and the belief that there is no God.



The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

The reality is the belief that there is no God is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the following, we see the evidence of design:

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?