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.

And yet they have faith in their belief that there is no God. That takes more faith than I have. Mine is not a blind faith.


You also can't prove your supernatural hypothesis by disproving a natural one. Any scientific theory has to stand on its own.

You keep coming back to this, and yet I have stated right from the start that all I am trying to show is what can be shown within the limits of science. If you believe what you say, then your strongest argument would some from addressing the points which have been raised, and yet for some reason, you don't want to allow this topic to go to it's logical conclusion from a scientific viewpoint.


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.

BTW, it may take me a couple of days to get back to any response that you give - see the last link below to find out why.

Tj3

Why can't the reductionists, the materialists, give us OSE for the origin of life, the origin of genetic code, the origin of proteins that can auto regulate?

This is then all "super natural" - and they chose to remain blind to what factual science shows them.

The reality is the the belief that there is no God is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !
Another nonsensical and invalid remark in respect to what was posted earlier.
You know very well that I never claimed that there is no "God".
It is impossible to prove the negative claim that "God" does not exist.
And despite many requests thereto theists failed so far to prove the MUCH-EASIER-TO-PROVE positive claim that "God" exists.

If you would spend as much energy on "spreading the word" in the way it is intended, you could have "turned" perhaps people towards Christianity.
However your constant negative , aggressive , and deliberate mendacious approach on various Q&A and discussion boards only results in the opposite : turning away people from your personal version of Christianity...

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

.

.

Why can't the reductionists, the materialists, give us OSE for the origin of life, the origin of genetic code, the origin of proteins that can auto regulate?
After thousands of years leading to and including Christianity there never was any OSE for the multitude of religious claims.
Since the ever faster development of science we know in a few hundred years millions of times more about nature than religion ever provided over these many thousands of years.

Besides that : those who make claims on the origin of life, on the origin of genetic code, on the origin of proteins that can auto regulate should indeed support their claims.
But that can not be used as argument that any unanswered query on these subjects can be seen as valid OSE for the existence of "God" etc.
For a validation of the existence of "God" the only thing that will do is valid OSE for the existence of "God" , and nothing else.


This is then all "super natural" - and they chose to remain blind to what factual science shows them.
What you call "factual science" tries to explain how nature functions with Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) , and does so increasingly successful.
Religious views - what you call the "super natural" - was NEVER and will NEVER be in the domain of that same "factual science", as it is based on BELIEF only.

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

.

.

What you call "factual science" tries to explain how nature functions with Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) , and does so increasingly successful.


What I called factual science is in the links I have provided - they can show that proteins autoregulate, or that a cell has gene repair mechanism.

What science has shown are these facts and the increasing complexity of the cell.

What these papars and research show is that evolution [ natural means ] cannot demonstrate any ose as to how these complexities came about in the first place.

Cred, IF you understood the basic biology of gene trascription and translation into proteins, you would be hammering away at the evolutionists as to their OSE for the origin of genetic code, proteins, cell complexity.

Further, IF you take biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, you will demand more OSE as to how these complex systems came about by chance and even billions of years.

If there is no "natural" explanation for these or what TJ3 has given you examples of then these are caused by super natural means.

What is that supernatural means? GOD.

What I called factual science is in the links I have provided - they can show that proteins autoregulate, or that a cell has gene repair mechanism.You can call whatever you like.
But I am not discussing here queries on evolution. There is a special topic opened for that.

Here in this topic the discussion is about the validity of queries and replies on other issues (I used the list of evolution queries and it's conclusion) being (mis) used as some "proof" of the existence of "God".

Of course the existence of "God" can only be OSE proved by DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God" and by nothing else.


If there is no "natural" explanation for these or what TJ3 has given you examples of then these are caused by super natural means.
You know my answer to this : the existence of "God" can only be OSE proved by direct evidence for the existence of "God" and by nothing else.

You may claim that there are no answers to these queries (although many of these issues were replied to here and repeatedly also on the Internet), but even if you were correct on that, it would only prove that there are no answers to these queries. Not that the conclusions creationists draw from that are correct.


What is that supernatural means? GOD.
Supernatural refers to something that is "beyond the physical universe".
That there is anything "beyond the physical universe" is a wild claim that never received any OSE as support.
Just as for the existence of the entity you refer to as "God". That OSE support does not exist neither !

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

.

.

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 - do you have anything useful to say, or is abuse all you can muster?


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 ?


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

Tj3

Why can't the reductionists, the materialists, give us OSE for the origin of life, the origin of genetic code, the origin of proteins that can auto regulate?

This is then all "super natural" - and they chose to remain blind to what factual science shows them.

Good questions - I doubt that any answers will be coming any time soon.

Another nonsensical and invalid remark in respect to what was posted earlier.
You know very well that I never claimed that there is no "God".

You argue that there is no God until you arer asked to validate that claim then you make comments like this.


It is impossible to prove the negative claim that "God" does not exist.

Exactly. So while we can demonstrate evidence for the xistence of God, so far you and the other athesist are coming up empty with respect to any validation for the belief that there is no God.


And despite many requests thereto theists failed so far to prove the MUCH-EASIER-TO-PROVE positive claim that "God" exists.


Everyone has seen the evidence, but you seem to avoid it.

Ho hum - do you have anything useful to say, or is abuse all you can muster?
And that line is NOT abuse??

:D


How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?
Ask that question where it belongs : see the board with queries about evolution LINK ! (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-science/)

:rolleyes:


You argue that there is no God until you arer asked to validate that claim then you make comments like this
Another deliberate clear Tj3 lie : I NEVER argued that there is no "God".
I say that there is no OSE, no "proof" for the existence of "God".

Tj3 : lying to support "God"!!

:D :D :D :D

.

.

And that line is NOT abuse??

So, what you are saying Cred, is that you can lie, falsely accuse, use name-calling, and that is not abuse - but dare anyone to even mention it - that is abuse??

I know some cults who would welcome you!


I NEVER argued that there is no "God".
I say that there is no OSE, no "proof" for the existence of "God".

So are you saying that you accept the possibility that God exists?

So, what you are saying Cred .....
Matthew 7:3 : why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?


that you can falsely accuse ...
You have repeatedly lied that I posted that "God does not exist". You know that is a lie.
I have replied to every of your similar allegations with a denial similar to this post.
Still you repeat that lie whenever that suits you .

There is no OSE proof for the existence of "God". If "God" exists or not I do not know. All I can see is that theists NEVER have OSE proved the positive claim that "God" exists.

AND THAT IS A FACT !!! : Both that there is no OSE (proof), and that you deliberate lie about this all.

"Lying for Christ" - a new method of "spreading the Word" ? Do they know at the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and the Signs of Scripture Conference that this is your current approach ?


So are you saying that you accept the possibility that God exists?
Everything is possible. That "God" exists seems to me highly unlikely, but it is possible.
And I note that I also have stated that clearly!!

Note : I saved this post complete with URL : next time you will get the same post!!

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

.

.

Matthew 7:3 : why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

Cred, you are the one pointing fingers. I keep trying to get on to the topic, and you keep trying to distract from it. If you claim otherwise, then get on topic.


You have repeatedly lied that I posted that "God does not exist". You know that is a lie.

Ah Cred, you forget that I have known you on at least three different boards over many many years. Further, everyone has seen your posts on here.


There is no OSE proof for the existence of "God". If "God" exists or not I do not know.

You just proved my point. No matter how often, on how many boards, and by how many people proof is posted from many different angles, you avoid the evidence like the plague. If one was open to any possibility, they would be so staunchly opposed to even acknowledging the proof.


All I can see is that theists NEVER have OSE proved the positive claim that "God" exists.

Now you arew back to saying that you cannot "see" the evidence :D :D


AND THAT IS A FACT !!! : Both that there is no OSE (proof), and that you deliberate lie about this all.

Shall I post it again?

Tj3 :

Whatever reasons Christians have to keep high standards for moral and ethics is irrelevant.
The proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

I wonder why...

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

.

.

[
Tj3 :

As I stated : the proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

Ho hum - facts made up by the Cred Institute no doubt, where research on the west pointing compass is underway by engineers who got their licences in high school :p

And that line is NOT abuse ???

:D



.

.

Cred,

PLEASE don't tell me you are the type that can dish it out but can't take it... read your own posts!

So do any of you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God?

I'm not aware of any. I don't understand either why you all keep saying that Cred says there is no God. I don't hear him saying that at all. I won't speak for him, but I don't believe in God BECAUSE I know of no evidence for His existence. Those are two different things.
1. Is there objective evidence for something?
2. Based on no evidence, do you choose to believe anyway or not?

Cred says there is no objective evidence and invites others to offer some in case he is not aware of it. I think he really wants to engage you about the nature of evidence, what is evidence and what is not. But that's a scientific way of thinking that is contrary to religious belief (in my opinion), which is not evidence based.
Cred does not appear to me to be saying that he knows there is no God. No one could say that.

There is no objective evidence for a lot of things. For example, there is no objective evidence for ghosts, but it's clear from this list that a lot of people nonetheless believe ghosts are real. Likewise, there is no objective evidence for the existence of a human "mind," yet many people believe it is a real entity separate from the body--hence the "mind body connection." There can't be a connection between two things if they aren't two things.

So for God, there can be no evidence and yet you can still choose to believe. Likewise, it's legitimate for someone else to choose not to believe BECAUSE there is no evidence "proving" God's existence.

In contrast, there IS objective evidence for the existence of polar bears, an international financial crisis, kidneys that clean blood, and millions of other things. These are matters that we can see, measure, feel, etc. God and the mind are not.

So do any of you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God?

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 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.

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.

For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God.

Thanks Tj3!

For now, I'm going to ignore the specifics, cool as they are, because I don't understand your central argument.

How does the lack of explanation for one thing provide proof of something else?

Would you say that if I don't know where my husband was last night, that's proof he was unfaithful? Just because I don't know something about him doesn't mean I default to a single alternate explanation.

Would you say that if I don't know why my washing machine won't start, that's proof that it's broken (as opposed to, say, that the power is off in my house)? Or is it proof that God doesn't want me to wash clothes today? I'm being silly, but you get what I'm saying, I hope.

How is your argument different from these arguments?

For now, I'm going to ignore the specifics, cool as they are, because I don't understand your central argument.

How does the lack of explanation for one thing provide proof of something else?

First it is not the lack of an explanation for something else. It is the fact that there is no feasible way in which a event could happen. For example, if I showed out a MacIntosh computer, and asked you if it was feasible for it to have come about through sexual reproduction between two other M<ac computers, you would say that it is not feasible. Therefore, we need to look at the remaining alternatives. It is not the failure to have an explanation - it is the fact that one or more approaches cannot possible happen.

It is a standard scientific approach - when you observe something, it might happen by a number of different ways. So you look at each one from a scie3ntific perspective, testing where possible, in an effort to determine which is correct. Once all possible alternatives but one are eliminated, then that which remains is accepted.

This is how most planets outside our solar system are found. It is how many phenomena in outer space are explained. Though in these cases, the criteria used to determine the final explanation is usually not quite as stringent as what I am using.

First it is not the lack of an explanation for something else. It is the fact that there is no feasible way in which a event could happen. For example, if I showed out a MacIntosh computer, and asked you if it was feasible for it to have come about through sexual reproduction between two other M<ac computers, you would say that it is not feasible. therefore, we need to look at the remaining alternatives. It is not the failure to have an explanation - it is the fact that one or more approaches cannot possible happen.

It is a standard scientific approach - when you observe something, it might happen by a number of different ways. So you look at each one from a scie3ntific perspective, testing where possible, in an effort to determine which is correct. Once all possible alternatives but one are eliminated, then that which remains is accepted.

This is how most planets outside our solar system are found. It is how many phenomena in outer space are explained. Though in these cases, the criteria used to determine the final explanation is usually not quite as stringent as what I am using.

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Sherlock Holmes, The Blanched Soldier

But, Tj3, you have not eliminated ANY possibilities. You have not actually made any effort to find a natural explanation for any of the items you listed. The only alternative on your list is one thing: a supernatural explanation. That is not the scientific approach at all.

You need a list of natural alternatives for EACH of your items, and you must eliminate these alternatives one by one. If you succeed in eliminating all of your alternatives, through rigorous experiment, then you must come up with MORE natural alternatives, until you find ONE you CANNOT disprove. And THAT'S the one scientists accept until further notice.

You have done the opposite. You have not a single natural alternative, and you have performed no experiment testing any natural alternative. Instead, you have immediately accepted as "proved" an unnatural explanation with no experimental evidence testing any alternatives.

In science, technically you cannot prove something like God; you can only disprove the alternatives, and you have not done that. You have just said you can't think of any alternatives.

If Watson and Crick had said, "We don't understand how genetic information is transferred from one generation to the next," (as Darwin, Weismann, Mendel, and hundreds of earlier scientists said), then you could argue (by your logic) that genes are a supernatural phenomenon since you wouldn't be able to think of an alternative. And had you lived before 1952, it's likely that you would have argued that. But we know that's wrong.

Because you live now, you know that genes are, in fact, information encoded in a molecule known as DNA, so you can't argue that inheritance has no natural explanation. The same is true of every single scientific fact ever discovered. Every thing we know was once not known, and could at that time have been used as "proof" that God exists--at least by your logic.

And each time a natural explanation was supplied--for photosynthesis, for how the heart pumps, for why we have tides--was God disproved? Hardly! But your logic, if turned on its head, would say so. This logic is just completely wrong. I hope you will take the time to try to understand what science is, because you have completely misunderstood the scientific method. If you were right, then scientists would disprove God every time they figured something out. I hope it's obvious to you that whether science explains how the eye evolved or why Jupiter is so big, it's never a disproof of God.

Have a great evening!

But, Tj3, you have not eliminated ANY possibilities. You have not actually made any effort to find a natural explanation for any of the items you listed.

I have actually. I have examined each of these, but I am being open to listening to others, as to whether anyone else can offer an alternate possibility that we can examine.


You need a list of natural alternatives for EACH of your items, and you must eliminate these alternatives one by one.

You have the floor - tell us what options you'd like us to examine.


You have done the opposite. You have not a single natural alternative, and you have performed no experiment testing any natural alternative.

I take it that you have not been following the discussion.


In science, technically you cannot prove something like God; you can only disprove the alternatives, and you have not done that. You have just said you can't think of any alternatives.

Again, you have not been following the discussion. The alternative of "God" was raised over and over again by the atheists, but not by myself. What I said was that I was prepared to submit the discussion to only those things that could be examined and proven by science. Why atheists were unwilling to do so is something known only to themselves.

Now, let's see your natural alternatives for any one of the examples.

I have not read all 500 plus entries in this thread, no. If that's required to discuss your post, then I withdraw.:)

As for the natural alternatives, that's your job, not mine. I could do it, but I'd rather discuss the logical error you make that dispenses with everything on your list at once than get bogged down in a discussion of biology in which I can be reasonably certain you'll just keep coming up with things that I can't explain.
That would be tedious and pointless. If you were actually interested in the biology, it would be fun and okay.

Bottom line: No matter how LITTLE I can explain, that lack of information provides no proof or evidence for the existence of God. Likewise, no matter how MUCH I can explain, that doesn't disprove God.

For some people, science makes God unnecessary, but not for others. But the important thing is that science can neither prove nor disprove something for which there is no evidence, by definition. If you could measure God and tell us where He is at any moment, he would no longer be a supernatural being. Religious feeling is subject to scientific explanation, since it's a natural phenomenon, but not God per se.

I don't have to read the other 500 posts to know that, and not because I know anything about God, but because I know a lot about how science works.

I have not read all 500 plus entries in this thread, no. If that's required to discuss your post, then I withdraw.:)

The point is that you are making statements which are not true, based upon your lack of knowledge of the discussion. No, you are not required to read them all, but if you have not done so, then you are not in a position to make definitive statement about what I have or have not done.



As for the natural alternatives, that's your job, not mine.

Well, I have done it, and if you are going to leave it to me, I could simply tell you the conclusion and that would be the end of the story. If you are unable or unwilling to put forward alternatives, then there is nothing more for me to consider.


I could do it, but I'd rather discuss the logical error you make that dispenses with everything on your list at once than get bogged down in a discussion of biology in which I can be reasonably certain you'll just keep coming up with things that I can't explain.

You claim a logical error, but have yet to identify one.


Bottom line: No matter how LITTLE I can explain, that lack of information provides no proof or evidence for the existence of God. Likewise, no matter how MUCH I can explain, that doesn't disprove God.

Like I said, you clearly have not read the discussion, because that is not the argument. If you wish to discuss logic, the logic fallacy that you are using is called a "strawman argument".


For some people, science makes God unnecessary, but not for others. But the important thing is that science can neither prove nor disprove something for which there is no evidence, by definition. If you could measure God and tell us where He is at any moment, he would no longer be a supernatural being. Religious feeling is subject to scientific explanation, since it's a natural phenomenon, but not God per se.

And ignoring everything that I say does not endorse your perspective either.


I don't have to read the other 500 posts to know that, and not because I know anything about God, but because I know a lot about how science works.

And so do I. That is why I, and other Christians are willing to use science. Atheists on the other hand are not willing to consider anything other than that which they consider natural (evolution). Denying an alternative without even being willing to consider it objectively is religion not science.

I note that the Christians are willing to discuss science alone, but atheists seem unwilling to allow the discussion to be based on what science alone can show.

That speaks volumes.

I was addressing the content of the post I first responded to. You are confused about how science works. God is not a testable hypothesis.

You claim you have experimental evidence that rules out all natural explanations for the several interesting natural phenomena you listed. But even if it were true that you had a large library of peer reviewed research eliminating a series of natural explanations, it's extremely unlikely that you could eliminate ALL natural explanations.

Science cannot be used to prove or disprove supernatural phenomena such as deities, fairies, and ghosts as long as those entities do not express themselves in any physical terms but only as feelings in the minds of believers. It doesn't matter how many posts I haven't read. Nothing you say can change that.

What puzzles me is your insistence on having scientific proof for a belief that is normally grounded in Faith. How can you claim faith and at the same time invoke a scientific rationale for your belief (even if I happen to think it's not a legitimate rationale)? Doesn't God want you to believe without question? The whole POINT of science is to question things, to challenge what is known and believed, to ask, which is why I call myself "asking," in case that wasn't obvious.

I was addressing the content of the post I first responded to.

And as you yourself admitted, that was 500 posts in, therefore you are making flat out statements that you claim to be fact, but are not because you do not have the benefit of known what has been said. To be honest, you could have said "it appears from what I have seen....." or something of the sort, but to make flat out statement when you don't have the facts and have not taken the time to ensure that your facts are straight is is just plain wrong. And what is worse, is that you then stand firmly on those unvalidated false claims.


You are confused about how science works. God is not a testable hypothesis.

First, it is unscientific to toss out something just because you don't believe it to be true.

Second, you keep saying that I was trying to test God. Once again, you apparently refuse to listen to the facts. I stated outright, right at the start, that I would leave God out of it, and deal solely when what could be shown from science. Why you keep wanting ignore the facts is beyond me.

You claim you have experimental evidence that rules out all natural explanations for the several interesting natural phenomena you listed. But even if it were true that you had a large library of peer reviewed research eliminating a series of natural explanations, it's extremely unlikely that you could eliminate ALL natural explanations.

Look - if and when you actually care to have a real discussion, and actually listen to what others say, I would be more than willing to go through this with you. But at the moment, you appear to not know what was said, or what the discussion was about, and you appear to care little about that fact.

The question seems to be asking "how did any of this begin". By design or accident. Looking at the universe around us it is evident there is an intelligent design. An accident occurs when two or more unforseen events, causes merge - and the intended purpose then of any of it is halted. Something different happens. So the very nature of "accident" implies that which is unexpected or unintended. This brilliant universe that flows seamlessly through time, with its starry lights in a velvet night sky, its brilliant sun hung in heavens blue sky that warms and replenishes the earth, its deep blue oceans and desert sand dunes, delicate rain forests with its thundering water falls - these things all created to enhance our enjoyment of a planet designed for mans' pleasure. "In the beginning" is difficult for most of us to fathom how - before anything was He was. We cannot wrap our mind around this. The Indians have their Great White Spirit. Others have the Great Buddha. In the end, they all acknowledge an intelligence which they honor as the designer of all things. Even with the Big Bang Theory there had to have been a spark -where did that come from. Because we have finite minds we probably never will actually know in this life exactly "how" all of this could happen. But we can see that this universe is brilliantly designed to continue endlessly. There is nothing we can design with such perfection - every plant, animal, oceans and seas, forests and woods, all designed for a specific purpose to maintain its checks and balances effortlessly. Science will probably always continue its search but it is right in front of them -even the human body is a wonder in itself. So design - accident? Look at this brilliant, awe inspiring universe and decide.
rjmarie

Why should the eye be any harder to explain than any other natural phenomenon such as legs evolving from the fins of fish or ear bones evolving from ancient jaws, which evolved from the gill arches of primitive fishes? If you take the time to study all these things, there's great wonder, but less and less mystery.

Tom's entire argument is flawed, as I stated earlier. There is no need to address each of these wonders (and millions upon millions others) in order to see that ignorance does not prove anything, least of all the existence of God. Tom's inability to imagine an explanation for the evolution of the eye or the kidney is just a failure, not a proof.

I could equally well argue, "I don't know what the cube root of 5347 is, so therefore there is no answer, and all math is a hoax." Such profound ignorance would not prove anything except that I didn't know much math.

Anyone who is not filled with wonder at everything around them, is probably depressed. But wonder is also not proof of anything except that we live in an amazing universe and humans are given to feelings of awe and wonder.

We are designed to question and wonder and a free will to choose whatever suits us regarding what we believe or choose not to believe. We can choose to believe in God or not to believe. This however does not nor cannot deny the existence of an intricately designed universe that floes and ebbs seamlessly through time. We are blessed to be free thinking so that we can question anything and make our own decisions. The scientists may never be able to answer where the first breath of life came from - all that is created had to start with that first breath of life.
rjmarie

No argument with any of that except there's no evidence we were designed by a supernatural being. That notion is, to me, just an appealing and romantic hunch which pleases and gratifies a great many people. We truly can choose to believe what we like.

No argument with any of that except there's no evidence we were designed by a supernatural being. That notion is, to me, just an appealing and romantic hunch which pleases and gratifies a great many people. We truly can choose to believe what we like.

The problem is that, like Cred, you make that claim without being williung to examine the evidence that is put forward.

That is not scientific.

Why should the eye be any harder to explain than any other natural phenomenon such as legs evolving from the fins of fish or ear bones evolving from ancient jaws, which evolved from the gill arches of primitive fishes? If you take the time to study all these things, there's great wonder, but less and less mystery.

Okay, why, if it is possible, has no one been able to explain it?

You got the floor - give us a plausible explanation


Tom's entire argument is flawed, as I stated earlier. There is no need to address each of these wonders (and millions upon millions others) in order to see that ignorance does not prove anything, least of all the existence of God.

You have not yuet identifuied any logic fallacy. And I note that you have used a logic fallacy by claiming that those who disagree with you are "ignorant" and therefore you avoid the question. That is a defined logic fallacy.


Tom's inability to imagine an explanation for the evolution of the eye or the kidney is just a failure, not a proof.

Sigh! It has nothing to do with inability to imagine an exaplanation - it is the fact that it is impossible. If you disagree, then give us a plausible explanation.

You are doing a great job of dancing ariound avoiding the question, why throwing darts anyone who disagrees with you, But that is neither scientific nor convincing.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

This is a simplified explanation, but it is supported by the existence of a huge range of eyes of different kinds, from the simplest patch of light sensitive cells, to elaborate camera eyes, like those of mammals, octopods, and even jellyfish. There are all kinds of similarly complex organs, including the heart, the kidneys, and the brain, all of which exist in other animals in varying degrees of complexity.

The "eye is so complex" challenge to evolution is old hat. It was a problem for biology 150 years ago, not now. Not only is there objective evidence supporting this idea, at the gross anatomic level and, independently, at the molecular level, but there is no evidence for the idea that plants and animals have not evolved. In 200 years of biology, no one has found evidence that casts doubt on the idea. Every knew fact discovered in thousands of labs around the world, day in and day out, over decades and decades, is consistent with the idea of evolution. I know that's intensely frustrating to hear, but it's true.

Now it's your turn to provide objective evidence for the existence of God that doesn't consist of you saying you don't understand something.

For example, I can prove bears exist because I can photograph them, I can collect hair, blood and fecal samples from them. They are demonstrably real. What objective evidence--something even an atheist could see and measure-- is there for God's existence?

The question of God's existence or non existence is an effort in futility and has been going on since the beginning of time. Those who believe will always believe, those who do not will always doubt and find reasons He does not. That is the greatness of our free will to think and do as we wish for our lifes. I would never attempt to force anyone to my beliefs but to let them take their own journey through this life on this beautiful planet earth we call home. This is what creates the diversity of heart and mind we see here and I respect this.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

We discussed this before. This does not tell us how the eye evolved from a light sensitive spot. Without all parts of the eyes in place, any one of these parts in ineffective. Sio please, tell us the progression of eevents that may have occurred.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

This is a simplified explanation, but it is supported by the existence of a huge range of eyes of different kinds, from the simplest patch of light sensitive cells, to elaborate camera eyes, like those of mammals, octopods, and even jellyfish. There are all kinds of similarly complex organs, including the heart, the kidneys, and the brain, all of which exist in other animals in varying degrees of complexity.

The "eye is so complex" challenge to evolution is old hat. It was a problem for biology 150 years ago, not now. Not only is there objective evidence supporting this idea, at the gross anatomic level and, independently, at the molecular level, but there is no evidence for the idea that plants and animals have not evolved. In 200 years of biology, no one has found evidence that casts doubt on the idea.Every knew fact discovered in thousands of labs around the world, day in and day out, over decades and decades, is consistent with the idea of evolution. I know that's intensely frustrating to hear, but it's true.

Now it's your turn to provide objective evidence for the existence of God that doesn't consist of you saying you don't understand something.

For example, I can prove bears exist because I can photograph them, I can collect hair, blood and fecal samples from them. They are demonstrably real. What objective evidence--something even an atheist could see and measure-- is there for God's existence?

Your link does not have OSE as to how the eye came to be.

The evidence that Cred is seeking is in him and us, and science shows that.

The eye, renal physiology, the electron transport chain, pulmonary physiology, neuroanatomy etc..


- all these show DESIGN.

So much design that there is biomimetics.

What is your OSE "natural" explanations for these things?
What specific genetic mutations explain human or comparative physiology? - up right walking, echolocation, etc...

What is the OSE, "natural" explanation for the genetic code?
Even Crick, a co-founder of the DNA double helix, and an atheist, has no "natural" explanation for what science has OSE of.

Every knew fact discovered in thousands of labs around the world, day in and day out, over decades and decades, is consistent with the idea of evolution



Species Diversity Of Enigmatic 'Flying Lemurs' Doubled By New Study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081110153612.htm)





"We were guessing that we might find that there were different species of Sunda colugo—although we were not sure," said Jan Janecka of Texas A&M University. "But what really surprised us was how old the speciation events were.


Janecka said they were particularly surprised to find that each geographic region they studied harbors its own unique species of colugo. And the species tally for colugos will likely continue to rise. "It appears that within smaller geographic areas



Just an example that everything is no already established evolutionary fact

News articles providing evidence of intelligent creation and design come up in the news all the time. We read in the new that scientists are going to try to design a compuing system that can simulate some basic functions at the level of a cat's brain. One scientist sais:

"`The mind has an amazing ability to integrate ambiguous information across the senses, and it can effortlessly create the categories of time, space, object, and interrelationship from the sensory data,' says Dharmendra Modha, the IBM scientist who is heading the collaboration.

`There are no computers that can even remotely approach the remarkable feats the mind performs,' he said. "
(Source: BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | IBM to build brain-like computers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7740484.stm) ).

The article goes on to say:

"Supercomputing, in turn, can simulate brains up to the complexity of small mammals, using the knowledge from the biological research. Modha led a team that last year used the BlueGene supercomputer to simulate a mouse's brain, comprising 55m neurons and some half a trillion synapses.

`But the real challenge is then to manifest what will be learned from future simulations into real electronic devices - nanotechnology,' Prof Modha said.

Technology has only recently reached a stage in which structures can be produced that match the density of neurons and synapses from real brains - around 10 billion in each square centimetre."

The design of even a cat or mouse brain is so far advanced that even with our technology today, this is a stretch. And they are only working on one portion of the mouse and cat brain - simple thought processes.

According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt.

Thank you for that post TJ3 it points out exactly why you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

Thank you for that post TJ3 it points out exactly why you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

This is the type of argument that it always comes down to, isn't it! One side (Christians) posting the detailed technical information, and the other side just telling us that we don't understand (even when we are technical experts ourselves, and even when we are former evolutionists!).

Evolution cannot explain with OSE what science shows us evidence of, mainly design.

Tj3 you are not an expert in biology. The notion that you once believed in evolution doesn't mean you ever understood it correctly. The reason it comes down to us telling you that you don't understand is because you don't want to understand and refuse to regardless of how much information is posted. You will not listen if you feel that the information goes against your belief and if you had even the slightest idea of about biology or evolution you would know why what you post is absolutely wrong and shows just how little you understand the subject matter.

Tj3 you are not an expert in biology.

I do have post-secondary training in biology, and I am most certainly an expert in electronics technology, and I have studied evolution.


The notion that you once believed in evolution doesn't mean you ever understood it correctly.

Nor do your attacks on others indicate that you are knowledgeable in any of these areas. And even those who are knowledgeable don't always agree, so even if your derogatory comments had any basis in fact, it would still not in any way enhance your position or the credibility of your argument. Indeed the approach that you are taking is a defined logic fallacy.


The reason it comes down to us telling you that you don't understand is because you don't want to understand and refuse to regardless of how much information is posted.

Claiming that what you are posted must be accepted and believed by everyone else is not only arrogant, it is wrong. If you wish to post something, you must be prepared to defend it against challenges. That is, BTW, the scientific method. You have been unwilling to do so.

Unlike you, I am prepared to not only defend my position from a scientific perspective, but I am prepared to validate the claims that I make. You appear to be unwilling to do either. If you are unable or unwilling to defend your position, then that certainly does not add any credibilityy either to your claims of technical superiority or to the validaity of your position.

Now, instead of attacks on others, if you really believe what you say, then it should be easy to defend your position from a scientific perspective rather than making unvalidated attacks on your opponents.

I didn't say anything about you not being an expert in electronics. I said you are not an expert in biology. Even the biology course you took is meaningless. Just because you took a course doesn't mean you understood it. It doesn't even mean you took a good course. For all I know the biology course you took could have been at Tj3's Christian college.

Also it would be easy to explain my position to someone who understood the science behind it but since you are arguing out of ignorance so much so that you don't even understand the logical fallacy of your argument when Asking pointed it out to so wonderfully.

So the reason we don't want to discuss science with you is because you don't understand it enough to have a discussion and when we try to have discussion with you as soon as we make a point you don't like you ignore it and change the subject. So no I will not discus science with you on a subject line as broad as this one because you will just go off topic as soon as I point out that you have no idea what you are actually talking about just like you did when I pointed out that matter is energy.

And I note that you [. . . ] claiming that those who disagree with you are "ignorant".

By the way, I did not say that. There is another use for the word "ignorance" than the one you are using. It doesn't have to have the connotation you apparently took it it to have. Everyone is ignorant of something. Otherwise this message board wouldn't exist. I didn't call anyone "ignorant," which would be insulting.

I did say that your grasp of science is quite weak and if you are going to continue to try to use science to prove the existence of God, I would urge you to learn the rudiments of a science. Biology or geology would both be great. I'm apologize if that's hard to hear. I do feel it's true and relevant to our discussion. It's unclear to me why you want to use science to prove the existence of God though. Is not faith enough for you?

(And I was addressing your question quite directly, not avoiding it.)
Just Asking

I didn't say anything about you not being an expert in electronics. I said you are not an expert in biology. Even the biology course you took is meaningless. Just because you took a course doesn't mean you understood it. It doesn't even mean you took a good course. For all I know the biology course you took could have been at Tj3's Christian college.

You only argument is to try to demean others who disagree with you.

That is sad and demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.

I did say that your grasp of science is quite weak and if you are going to continue to try to use science to prove the existence of God, I would urge you to learn the rudiments of a science. Biology or geology would both be great. I'm apologize if that's hard to hear. I do feel it's true and relevant to our discussion. It's unclear to me why you want to use science to prove the existence of God though. Is not faith enough for you?

Like michael, it seems that you also do not have a scientific response to the issue, only an attack on the person.

Maybe that is all that the atheists have left to muster.

According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt.

This is an error. Biologists do not think that.

Why are you trying to use a tool you do not know how to use to prove God?

Science is a specialized tool for learning about the physical world. It is the wrong tool for the job. AND you are unfamiliar with the way this tool should be used.

This is an error. Biologists do not think that.

I never said that they did. It would be silly to think that. That is exactly why evolution cannot be. I am trying to use an analogy to show how difficult it is to logically hold to the evolutionists position.

But I note that your only argument once again it to attack the person. I guess that you are struggling to deal with the issue.

But I note that your only argument once again it to attack the person. You seem to always scream 'personal attack' when in fact there are none. Is that your defense mechanism?

Like michael, it seems that you also do not have a scientific response to the issue, only an attack on the person.

Maybe that is all that the atheists have left to muster.

It's just not very much fun to argue with someone who is trying to make an argument based on things I know are not true. There's no sport here. Your arguments are not only wrong, they are repetitive and dull. If you could actually engage about the science as many Christians do, it might be fun.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish with your argument that God can be proved by disproving evolution? Even if you could disprove evolution (and get a cover paper on the journal Nature!), it would not prove the existence of God.

But if you could prove the existence of God, what would that do for you personally? What's your motivation? Do you need this for yourself? Are you hoping to get us to admit we are wrong? Hoping to convert people to faith?

I never said that they did. It would be silly to think that. That is exactly why evolution cannot be. I am trying to use an analogy to show how difficult it is to logically hold to the evolutionists position.

But I note that your only argument once again it to attack the person. I guess that you are struggling to deal with the issue.

I was referring to this part of your sentence, the basis for your argument. I had it in italics, forgetting the software puts everything in italics.

You wrote, "According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, "

You did say that. And it is an error.

It's just not very much fun to argue with someone who is trying to make an argument based on things I know are not true. There's no sport here.

Agreed. So please get off the "You are not up to my level of understanding" ploy, and start validating your position. To be honest, I have not been impressed by the science demonstrated by thos who hold to the atheist position on here, but I have chosen to demonstrate the weakness of those arguments through validation and evidence, not through making unvalidated c laims against the person. The latter approach is a defined logic fallacy.

I was referring to this part of your sentence, the basis for your argument. I had it in italics, forgetting the software puts everything in italics.

You wrote, "According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, . . . "

You did say that. And it is an error.

Why do some folks insist in taking things out of context? What I said was:

"According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt."

Now I don't know any biologist who says that computers develop naturally from dirt, but that is the equivalent of saying that the brain did.

To be honest, I have not been impressed by the science demonstrated by thos who hold to the atheist position on hereWhy do you assume that being an atheist is based on science?

Why do you assume that being an atheist is based on science?

I don't. Quite the contrary. I find far too many atheists who believe their religion regardless of what scientific evidence shows.

Why do some folks insist in taking things out of context? What I said was:

"According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt."

Now I don't know any biologist who says that computers develop naturally from dirt, but that is the equivalent of saying that the brain did.

I took it out of context, because I needed to show you the part that was wrong. You seemed to not understand the first time.

To further clarify, since you still seem confused, you don't know any biologists who say that the human brain developed either:
1. naturally from dirt
Or
2. "by chance."

I hope that covers all the bases.

I took it out of context, because I needed to show you the part that was wrong. You seemed to not understand the first time.

To further clarify, since you still seem confused, you don't know any biologists who say that the human brain developed either:
1. naturally from dirt
or
2. "by chance."

I hope that covers all the bases.

So you are saying that all biologists reject evolution. Good!!

BTW, I note that you are still unable to refite what I said - you just keep trying to attack the person.

Not believing in God is not directly "based" on science. I agree with NeedKarma.

But I do think Tj has a point that there's a connection. According to a survey conducted in 1998, elite scientists are much less likely to believe in a personal god than non scientists. In general, the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in God. And, separately, the more they know about biology, the less likely they are to believe in God. (In Darwin's case, his loss of belief came before his theory of evolution, not the other way around, as is sometimes believed. And he also did not have a deathbed conversion, a myth.)

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"  July 23, 1998 (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)


We found the highest percentage of belief among [National Academy of Sciences] mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

Not believing in God is not directly "based" on science.

You are right. Not believing in God has NOTHING to do with science.

And of course believing in God has nothing to do with science, right?

And of course believing in God has nothing to do with science, right?

There is a difference. Notice how Christians use scientific findings, and validate what they say using science.

And that atheists get frustrated and go after the Christians without being able to refute what the Christians post?

The only way that you can demonstrate this not to be true is to actually post something on topic and deal with the issue.

Ah I just discovered this thread. I love these discussions.

:)

I'm not going after you. I'm going after your inaccurate statements about biology, science, and the nature of evidence. I'm referring to Cred's original post.

Your premise is that if random people on the internet cannot give detailed biological explanations for any question about the natural world, then that proves that God exists. This is just rank nonsense.

I have posted at length on this topic. Your list of things that you don't know the answer to is quite short, all things considered. But no matter how long you could make the list and how few answers you amassed, none of it would prove the existence of any sort of god, least of all a specific God such as your own. (For that, you must look into your heart.) In fact, your list doesn't prove anything about the natural world except what it says about you personally. Of course I consider you a part of the natural world.

In case you are still confused, I will provide an example: I don't know why heartbeats are irregular. My not knowing that does not prove that God exists or that any god exists. My not being able to explain that does not prove anything except some minor fact about me. This IS an answer to your question about eyes, turkeys, macaws, and various other oddities.

Your not bothering to read about the evolution of eyes or turkeys does prove anything about anything. It's clearly pointless for me to go read up at length about it and carefully summarize for you, because no matter how much I dig up and present to you: it will not prove anything one way or the other, you will be able to ask more questions (and somewhat foolishly think you are winning), because that is the nature of reality. There's always something unknown. It would be futile for me to waste time answering questions just so that you could ask more, especially when I know that you don't want to know the answers, don't want there to be any answers, and apparently think that as long as you have people answering infinite numbers of pointless questions, you are winning a battle against the forces of evil.

I'm not going after you. I'm going after your inaccurate statements about biology, science, and the nature of evidence. I'm referring to Cred's original post.

I note that you have chosen to attack me by making demeaning comments in numerous messages now - that is not refuting or addressing the topic.


Your premise is that if random people on the internet cannot give detailed biological explanations for any question about the natural world, then that proves that God exists. This is just rank nonsense.

And that comment is a mis-representation that has been clarified many times before, so I can only presume that you are deliberately mis-representing. Again, you are not addressing the issue.

I can understand your frustration in not having an response of substance and yet you feel that you must defend your position.


Your not bothering to read about the evolution of eyes or turkeys does prove anything about anything.

heh heh heh - you must really be frustrated when you fabricate comments like this! I dare you to point out any evidence put forward which I have not addressed.

Asking's post makes a lot of sense actually.

You can't explain unknown's by automatically assigning it to God's work. You can attribute previously unexplainable issues to science now, where as before, when not understood, God was said to be the reason. This happened, and still happens, because people are afraid of the unknown and want to believe there is some larger purpose behind it all.

You can't explain unknown's by automatically assigning it to God's work.

No one has. This is a strawman argument that he is using because he has no rebuttals.

No one has. This is a strawman argument that he is using because he has no rebuttals.

That's what I understood is happening? For example, the eye. Because science can't necessarily explain exactly how it works, religion would instead like to pin it as the work of God.

That's what I understood is happening? For example, the eye. Because science can't necessarily explain exactly how it works, religion would instead like to pin it as the work of God.

Nope. In fact I said right at the start that I was prepared to leave God out of the discussion entirely and deal solely what could be shown by science. The atheists on this list were unwilling to rely solely on science.

I suspect that you do not know the history of the discussion. It goes back a number of years, starting with a group of people on another board who originally agreed that there were only two ways in which things that we find in nature could have come into existence - by natural means (whatever that may be), or by means of an intelligent designer / creator (whoever or whatever that may be).

By examining different events / things from nature, if those events / things are impossible to have come about naturally, then that leaves the only other alternative. Saying that some is not possible is not the same as saying that we cannot explain it. Saying that we cannot explain it says that we don't know how it happened. Saying that it is impossible is saying that there are aspect of the events / thing which means that we can demonstrate that it could not have happened that way. This process is commonly used in science.

The problem is that your fundamental logic is wrong TJ3. I know you going to say that is a straw-man argument but please explain how we are giving an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of your position.

As near as I can tell you feel that if certain questions in biology can't be proven. It disproves evolution and therefor proves god. If this is any where near what your position is then telling you that you have logical fallacy is not a straw-man. If this isn't your position please let us know because if this isn't it you have us all very confused.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason everyone tells you that you are ignorant when you debate with them is because you are?

Post has ended up negative comments back and forth, litle actual discussion on last several pages,

Thread closed