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 ?

:)

.

.

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html). There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html). There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!

The article gives a very simplistic view, ignoring even something as simple as the fact that unless the lens and associated nerves and muscles all developed simultaneously, they would all be less than useless - a less than perfect lens would inhibit the ability to see and would thus not create something more fit, but rather something less fit.

BTW, I should take this opportunity to note that "Pericles" in the OP is a prior userid for Cred. Prior to this, as stated, there was consensus that there were two option - either natural evolution or creation by God. No one was able to put forward any third option. After these were posted many many times, "pericles" kept saying that he could not see the postings, and no one could offer a feasible explanation which did not require an intelligent designer. In fact, except for one of these examples, no one was even able to come up with any possible explanation at all.

Cred likes to call this a list. It never was a list. This is simply a compilation of a few of the examples which were posted on the other site which the evolutionist were unable to address.

First of all, everyone should agree that by "God" what is meant is GodAlmighty of the Bible in order to avoid confusion.

OK?

First of all, everyone should agree that by "God" what is meant is GodAlmighty of the Bible in order to avoid confusion.

OK?

For the sake of keeping this entirely objective, I am quite satisfied to leave it at an intelligent designer. Who that designer is can be left to be determined.

By the way. The God of the Bible is "Almighty God".

For the sake of keeping this entirely objective, I am quite satisfied to leave it at an intelligent designer. Who that designer is can be left to be determined.

By the way. the God of the Bible is "Almighty God".

Excellent argumentation TJ! I doubt that any atheists will be able to put a dent in it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Everyone will be talking about a different "God"... you have to be specific... that would be the GodAlmighty of the Bible since those engaging in the conversation will overwhelmingly be Christians, with a few Jews and Muslims.

There are other concepts of "God" held by many, such as Einstein, that have nothing to do with a personal god, like GodAlmighty, so that huge difference must be made or this conversation is worthless. Many people have their own concept of "God" that they make up that has no likeness to the Biblical GodAlmighty. That too must be omitted.

No reason to talk and be talking about two different things altogether.

Everyone will be talking about a different "God".... you have to be specific....that would be the GodAlmighty of the Bible since those engaging in the conversation will overwhelmingly be Christians, with a few Jews and Muslims.

There are other concepts of "God" held by many, such as Einstein, that have nothing to do with a personal god, like GodAlmighty, so that huge difference must be made or this conversation is worthless. Many people have their own concept of "God" that they make up that has no likeness to the Biblical GodAlmighty. That too must be omitted.

No reason to talk and be talking about two different things altogether.

We don't have to talk about God at all at this point - we can just discuss an intelligent designer. All I have to show is that any one of these could not have occurred naturally.

Now instead of trying to argue a side issue, why don't you address the question at hand - provide a feasible manner in which any of those examples could have occurred naturally with an intelligent designer.

Sorry, you can't have it several different definitions in a serious discussion. That's nonsense.

Since you are a well-known apologist for Christianity on different Q&A Sites, we will use *YOUR GOD* for purposes of discussion and so that the less educated folks here can follow the discussion if they wish.

OK, your god, GodAlmighty is the intelligent designer. That is the definition of God for the purposes of this discussion.

Sorry, you can't have it several different definitions in a serious discussion. That's nonsense.

Since you are a well-known apologist for Christianity on different Q&A Sites, we will use *YOUR GOD* for purposes of discussion and so that the less educated folks here can follow the discussion if they wish.

OK, your god, GodAlmighty is the intelligent designer. That is the definition of God for the purposes of this discussion.

You seem to have missed the point of the question. The question is whether there is any way that these examples could occur naturally. And so far no one has come forward with a feasible suggestion. But - whatever you like - if you want to support the one and only true God,then your endorsement of the God of the Bible is noted.

Now I am looking forward to you providing a feasible explanation for any of the examples.

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY: I know that humans can only see in 4 dimensions Red, Green, Blue, and Luminosity [Light]. Some creatures can see in more than those 4 dimensions. Chickens for example can see in 12 dimensions, bees see in ultraviolet. It is possible that the turkey can see the infrared signature of its compost, and it adjusts and/or lays eggs once it “looks” right. This of course jumps back to the evolution of the eye. The turkey may also be sensitive to bacteria, which incubate at a preset temperature in the compost.

I would like to add to the above that "God" which in my sense means the entity credited with the creation of the universe. Is scientifically unproven, we cannot reproduce God consistently in a lab nor can we contact God at our whim to clear up the matter. So we cannot say for certain that god is/isn't responsible as we have no proven alternative for either case.

However, I think we should be asking at which level is God responsible. Hypothetically, if the turkey's evolved eye lets it see when its heap is "ripe", and you've solved the evolution of the turkey's eye. What of the atoms of the eye, how were they created?

Science tells us atoms[matter] cannot be created, only turned into energy, and since we can throw reversing entropy out of the window, how was the universe's matter created... We don't know. Creation of matter is beyond human understanding, however God is as well. Therefore, we can't say "for certain" that unexplained natural events are automatically in God's territory.

However as we are intelligent beings, considering all that we can do. It is not too difficult to imagine that at some level, some hyper-intelligent entity knows the secrets of the universe and may be responsible for all that we have. On the other hand, that raises the question of its[entity] origin.

It is a can't win argument for all parties involved. As neither side has definitive proof to support their claims. Scientists cannot prove that matter the basic building block of out universe can be created by natural reproducible means. The devout cannot prove that God has a natural manifestation and can affect the laws of the universe. Of course if God were to show up we could solve this argument immediately :]

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY: I know that humans can only see in 4 dimensions Red, Green, Blue, and Luminosity [Light].

These are not dimensions. Red, green and blue are simply parts of the EM spectrum.


Some creatures can see in more than those 4 dimensions. Chickens for example can see in 12 dimensions, bees see in ultraviolet.

Once again, if your sources (which you do not give) tell you that chickens can see in 12 dimensions, I would question the validity of those sources. It is true that some animals have a different spectral range than others, but what has that to do with the issue at hand?


It is possible that the turkey can see the infrared signature of its compost, and it adjusts and/or lays eggs once it “looks” right.

And once again, how would it have that knowledge, the knowledge as to the fact that they should first build a compost heap because that will produce the desired heat, to wait and check back on the compost heap, and then what the right temperature is, and how to equate infrared light (assuming that they can even see it, which so far is only an assumption on your part) to know whether that frequency/intensity of light indicates the right temperature.

I would suggest that your suggestion may actually further complicate the issue, but at very least, you are dealing entirely on assumptions from a questionable source.


This of course jumps back to the evolution of the eye. The turkey may also be sensitive to bacteria, which incubate at a preset temperature in the compost.

Then that raises questions as to how they know that bacteria is related to the generation of heat, to the degree that they decide to build compost heaps containing that bacteria. Where does that knowledge come from?

[QUOTE=Tj3]The article gives a very simplistic view, ignoring even something as simple as the fact that unless the lens and associated nerves and muscles all developed simultaneously, they would all be less than useless - a less than perfect lens would inhibit the ability to see and would thus not create something more fit, but rather something less fit.[\QUOTE]

A less than perfect lens certainly does not inhibit the ability to see. Also, some creatures do fine with an eye without lenses. You can get a very good image with just an aperture.

This tom guy is right! Evolutions is not only improbable, it is impossible.

Tom, since *you are afraid* to have your very own definition of "God"(GodAlmighty of the Bible) for this discussion, I'm not interested in participating in one ofy your exercises in *double talk*.

Have a good week! :)

This tom guy is right! Evolutions is not only improbable, it is impossible.

You go girl!
Here is wildandblue's contribution: you know how in Genesis Abraham is supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, but then he finds a ram caught by it's horns in the brush and God directs him to use that instead? Events which happened I think 5000 years ago. OK now today wildandblue is still pulling rams out of bushes, he's given up deerhunting since ram pulling is so much easier but I digress... The POINT being how long is this evolution crap supposed to take? 5000 years and sheep are no smarter now than they were then? How does this show survival of the fittest for instance?
Cred, I also suggest the fact that the presence of the observer changes the very thing he intends to observe, and since this God is omniscient there is no way to avoid Him knowing you are observing.
Also my thought that objective is actually a lot of little subjectives, and doesn't really exist either independently of them
Anyway I have to go, a ram is arguing with one of the knots in the woodgrain on our telephone pole, I have to explain again that the pole is not picking a fight with him. SIGH
As well as my thought that objective is only a very large number of subjectives and so doesn't actually exist either.

Tom, since *you are afraid* to have your very own definition of "God"(GodAlmighty of the Bible) for this discussion, I'm not interested in participating in one ofy your exercises in *double talk*.

Have a good week! :)

I am not afraid at all. I am more than willing to let the evidence speak for itself. That is why I am willing to allow this question to be determined on purely objective grounds.

I am sorry to see that your approach is the same as it was on the previous site where we discussed.

These are not dimensions. Red, green and blue are simply parts of the EM spectrum.



Once again, if your sources (which you do not give) tell you that chickens can see in 12 dimensions, I would question the validity of those sources. It is true that some animals have a different spectral range than others, but what has that to do with the issue at hand?



And once again, how would it have that knowledge, the knowledge as to the fact that they should first build a compost heap because that will produce the desired heat, to wait and check back on the compost heap, and then what the right temperature is, and how to equate infrared light (assuming that they can even see it, which so far is only an assumption on your part) to know whether that frequency/intensity of light indicates the right temperature.

I would suggest that your suggestion may actually further complicate the issue, but at very least, you are dealing entirely on assumptions from a questionable source.



Then that raises questions as to how they know that bacteria is related to the generation of heat, to the degree that they decide to build compost heaps containing that bacteria. Where does that knowledge come from?


You didn't read the second post it continued on based from the first.

The article gives a very simplistic view, ignoring even something as simple as the fact that unless the lens and associated nerves and muscles all developed simultaneously, they would all be less than useless - a less than perfect lens would inhibit the ability to see and would thus not create something more fit, but rather something less fit.

A less than perfect lens certainly does not inhibit the ability to see. Also, some creatures do fine with an eye without lenses. You can get a very good image with just an aperture.

Actually, a less than perfect lens does inhibit sight. You might see light or fuzzy images but nothing else. You are proposing possible designs (i.e. apertures) which require intelligence to design, but you still have not told us how such a structure might evolve.

That is the question.

You didnt read the second post it continued on based from the first.

I did. But I did not see how it overcame the problems that I raised to your first post. It seems that you were essentially working on a possible design as to how the animal could accomplish this feat - but that in an of itself defeats your argument because that requires intelligence. You have not told us how this could come to be through natural evolution.

Before we move on to the source of the intelligence, we must fist review the evidence for this intelligence (which was the point of the original question), and then we can look at the attributes of this creative intelligence, and thus determine who He is rather than going by one persons person opinions.

You go girl!
Here is wildandblue's contribution: you know how in Genesis Abraham is supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, but then he finds a ram caught by it's horns in the brush and God directs him to use that instead? Events which happened I think 5000 years ago. OK now today wildandblue is still pulling rams out of bushes, he's given up deerhunting since ram pulling is so much easier but I digress...The POINT being how long is this evolution crap supposed to take? 5000 years and sheep are no smarter now than they were then? How does this show survival of the fittest for instance?
Cred, I also suggest the fact that the presence of the observer changes the very thing he intends to observe, and since this God is omniscient there is no way to avoid Him knowing you are observing.
Also my thought that objective is actually a lot of little subjectives, and doesn't really exist either independently of them
Anyway I have to go, a ram is arguing with one of the knots in the woodgrain on our telephone pole, I have to explain again that the pole is not picking a fight with him. SIGH
As well as my thought that objective is only a very large number of subjectives and so doesn't actually exist either.


Evolution typically takes far more time than 5000 years. However radical changes in species can happen faster. Look at the how corn was genetically engineered[selectively breeded] by the ancients They took the plants they thought were better and made sure thet mated over time we get corn. If you see the plant they started with, and what we have as corn today they are completely different you'd consider them to be two different plants... you might even say that god created two different species but that would be false it was created by man. Evolution works in the same way, it's selective breeding which stems from survival of the fittest over vasts amounts of time. Only instead of man being the changing factor, nature is, maybe God is.

Secondly the sheep haven't had the evolutionary pressure to get smarter over the last 5000 years. i.e. brains weren't pertinent to their survival.

Hopes this clear this up a bit.

Evolution typically takes far more time than 5000 years. However radical changes in species can happen faster. Look at the how corn was genetically engineered[selectively breeded] by the ancients They took the plants they thought were better and made sure thet mated over time we get corn. If you see the plant they started out with, and what we have as corn today they are completely different you'd consider them to be two different plants...

It is still the same thing - it is still corn. But note, even for the changes that you are discussing, a intelligent intervention was required. And most importantly, where did the corn come from originally?

It is still the same thing - it is still corn. But note, even for the changes that you are discussing, a intelligent intervention was required. And most importantly, where did the corn come from originally?

The original plant it came from is nothing like corn we have today. The point is, nature uses the same processes albeit much slower.

The original plant it came from is nothing like corn we have today. The point is, nature uses the same processes albeit much slower.

Really? Please provide your evidence and the link to the DNA analysis showing that it is no longer corn.

Second, please get back on topic and show us how the corn evolved from non-living matter.

Just a note to keep us on track. There are a number of examples which demonstrate evidence of an intelligent creator.

The challenge is for anyone to provide a feasible proposal as to how these may have evolved naturally.

If life is to complex to evolve on it's own isn't your god arguably more complex. So if you believe god can be on his own, then life from non life shouldn't be that hard since you already believe that nothingness created your god.

If life is to complex to evolve on it's own isn't your god arguably more complex. So if you believe god can be on his own, then life from non life shouldn't be that hard since you already believe that nothingness created your god.

God wasn't created.

Please stay on topic. If you want to start a thread regarding your views on God, that okay, but this thread is examining whether any feaible proposal can be put forward on how any of these examples could possibly come into existence naturally. It sounds to me like you are saying that you do not have anything to offer in regards to the topic.

My sheep are also so dumb that they get their teeth stuck in their wool while using it for dental floss, and walk around with their heads at a funny angle until they are freed. It's like this I have wool business is totally a new experience for them. And, being this dumb, in an animal that typically lives 6 to 8 years, they would have statistically died out a lot quicker than any supposed evolution could have allowed them to survive and succeed, if say 5000 years is not sufficient time for us to have obtained a significant difference in their populations.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)
To easy.

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?
There are simpler forms of DNA. Did you know that there are things that are considered alive that have DNA even non living replicators that have DNA. Your missing minor infintessimal steps that build complexity over time to deal with environmental pressures.

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?
We are not exactly sure yet, but just because we don't know the exact way something came to be doesn't mean god did it but I'll concede that we don't know yet. Its okay though I'm a big enough of a person to say there are things that aren't know to man yet. Unlike the religions who when ever they don't know something claim god did it. Another thing to remember about this is that bacteria which is generally regarded as a simple cell isn't simple. The first cells are believed to be much simpler than anything is alive today because they wouldn't have had to compete with anyone for resources

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question alive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?
Pond scum can be life but it also refers to many non living items as well. But the chance that modern pond scum would create the simplest life form is unlikely because it does already contain life that would out compete any simple form of life out of resources.


AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY What came first the turkey or the egg? The natural solution for this is that the turkey's nest building developed slowly as did the turkey's eggs need for exact temperatures. Turkey's that were better at building nests produced more offspring. The turkey doesn't need to understand anything it just knows that in order to survive it needs to build a better nest than the other guy. Natural solution makes perfect sense with a little education on how evolution works.


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.
Why does a flawed design prove a perfect designer? If someone was designing it why add the extra step? If you want something to be a food source for a particular animal only make the one animal just naturally able to eat it.
The natural reason however is more than likely due to the birds ancestry. Ancient birds use to swallow rocks to break down the food they ate. If the rocks they were swallowing were covered in mud(like they would be in a river bed which is the best place to get rocks in a forest) they would have also been getting the ability to eat those seeds without knowing it. As they moved towards flight and no longer needed the stones they kept eating the mud that allowed them to exploit a resource other animals could not.


God wasn't created.

If you can handle the idea that the most complex thing ever dreamed of came to be without creation. Why is it so hard to believe that these relatively simple things came about without creation but through environmental pressures just as lakes and rivers have complex shapes due to the pressure of the water. Life formed and became more complex on the pressure the environment placed on simple replicating chains of chemicals.

My sheep are also so dumb that they get their teeth stuck in their wool while using it for dental floss, and walk around with their heads at a funny angle until they are freed. It's like this I have wool business is totally a new experience for them. And, being this dumb, in an animal that typically lives 6 to 8 years, they would have statistically died out a lot quicker than any supposed evolution could have allowed them to survive and succeed, if say 5000 years is not sufficient time for us to have obtained a significant difference in their populations.

Evolutions can occur fairly quickly if the original sample size is large and the selection is small. For example if I have a flock of sheep say 1000 and of those 1000 I only allow the 50 with the best wool to breed to make the next 1000. If I do this for say 10 generations. If I did it correctly on average my last generation of sheep will have better wool than the first generation I started with. The reason your sheep are dumb is because they don't need intellect to produce better wool so your forefathers didn't select the smart ones they picked the ones with the better wool. If you were to kill the ones that got their teeth stuck in there wool give it a few generations and you won't have that problem anymore however you might loose a more desirable trait.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)
To easy.

Really? Well, I won't try to expose all the problems with what they say, but let me just explain a simple matter of the eye for you. A photosensitive spot, which is how they suggest that it started is no more complex than a very sensitive nerve. Vision is far more complex. Here is a diagram of the chemical processes:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/bio.gif

Since the person or animal is blind is ANY one of these processes does not exist - how did these processes evolve from that photosensitive spot?


There are simpler forms of DNA. Did you know that there are things that are considered alive that have DNA even non living replicators that have DNA. Your missing minor infintessimal steps that build complexity over time to deal with environmental pressures.

So you have no answer regarding DNA.


We are not exactly sure yet, but just because we don't know the exact way something came to be doesn't mean god did it but I'll concede that we don't know yet. Its okay though I'm a big enough of a person to say there are things that aren't know to man yet. Unlike the religions who when ever they don't know something claim god did it. Another thing to remember about this is that bacteria which is generally regarded as a simple cell isn't simple. The first cells are believed to be much simpler than anything is alive today because they wouldn't have had to compete with anyone for resources

Again you have no answer.


Pond scum can be life but it also refers to many non living items as well. But the chance that modern pond scum would create the simplest life form is unlikely because it does already contain life that would out compete any simple form of life out of resources.

Pond scum by definition is alive. But nonetheless since you admit that some forms of pond scum are alive, once again I note that you have no answer as to how it came to be.


What came first the turkey or the egg? The natural solution for this is that the turkey's nest building developed slowly as did the turkey's eggs need for exact temperatures. Turkey's that were better at building nests produced more offspring. The turkey doesn't need to understand anything it just knows that in order to survive it needs to build a better nest than the other guy. Natural solution makes perfect sense with a little education on how evolution works.

The eggs will dies unless incubated at the perfect temperature. The second generation of turkeys would never exist unless they got it right the first time. Some things you don't get a second chance to learn. And you appear to be suggesting that one generation of birds teaches the next.


Why does a flawed design prove a perfect designer?

Who said that it was a flawed design? I thought that you believed in survival of the fittest - how did the birds survive if it is not a good design?

As an engineer, I can tell you that some things that those who do not understand engineering may think is "flawed" proves to be a good design, and unless you perfectly understand every aspect of a design, you cannot make a judgment call such as that. So why not just address the question at hand - how would this evolve naturally?


The natural reason however is more than likely due to the birds ancestry. Ancient birds use to swallow rocks to break down the food they ate. If the rocks they were swallowing were covered in mud(like they would be in a river bed which is the best place to get rocks in a forest) they would have also been getting the ability to eat those seeds without knowing it.

A lot of "if's" there, but it does not answer the question, because these birds choose to eat the poisonous seeds. If your argument was right, then why would they not eat a mix of poisonous and non-poisonous plants, like goats do? Why would they simply eat two things - the poisonous seeds and the antidote for the poison?


As they moved towards flight and no longer needed the stones they kept eating the mud that allowed them to exploit a resource other animals could not.

You are assuming intelligence here - assuming that after they no longer needed stones, and thus exposure to the mud, they chose to keep eating mud in order to exploit a resource that others could not.

You defeated your own argument.

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html). There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!



To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but





A bunch of ifs offered up as an explanation?


First paragraph - then goes on to list examples of different "eyes"

But never actually explains how an eye came to be.

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

If god has always been.
If god is perfect.
IF god exists
If god inspired the bible
If god is all powerful
If god doesn't have an end
If god is beyond our reasoning
If god is not responsible for evil
If god created the earth 6000 years ago
If god created the macaw
If god created fossils
If god created the eye
If god created thumbs
If god created poisons
If god...
I could go on but I think you get my point well actually I know you don't get my point but I've reached the point at which others will get my point and I know no matter how many ifs I give you for your theory it doesn't matter because you will always fall back on god did it and never pursue real knowledge instead resting on the false knowledge of god did it and the reason I say it's false knowledge is because god did it has never been the correct answer we have never found a question that has been proven that the answer is god did it and I even think you will agree with me that we will never find scientific prove of god. There for if it is a scientific question the answer can't be god did it.

But your reply assumes sheep which somehow evolved naturally lived long enough for people to domesticate them and then start selecting for certain traits. And I can select for fleece characteristics in one generation since it is a highly heritable trait. How exactly does an animal that is dumb as a brick, gets its head stuck while arguing with a bush that reached out and scratched him as he walked by, or gets its teeth stuck while scratching its back, both of them would starve to death if someone didn't realize their predicament and rescue them. Isn't survival of the fittest supposed to mean they get basically smarter or hardier as the population evolves? The only way these could make it, or any newborn animal makes it, is that Somebody loves them and cares about them all. God is love, after all

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

I am not asking what you know - I am simply asking if there is any feasible way that these could have occurred, other than by creation.

If you wish to start a thread to discuss the truth and reality of God, then do so. This is examining the feasibility of the claims regarding evolution with respect to these specific examples.

I am not asking what you know - I am simply asking if there is any feasible way that these could have occurred, other than by creation.

And I said there is and gave examples of how they feasibly could have happened although I admit that we don't have all of the answers yet.


Isn't survival of the fittest supposed to mean they get basically smarter or hardier as the population evolves?

This is a common misconception. Survival of the fittest really means breeding of the fittest. What makes the animal more or less likely to breed depends on the environment. In the case of sheep since humans(humans are part of the environment) are there to assist them and make sure the dumb ones survive and breed. Intellect doesn't make them more fit for the current environment. Better wool, better meat makes them more likely to breed than intellect. Which is why they are dumb but have good meat and wool. Evolution (survival of the fittest) doesn't account for things that would make the animal species survive long term it only looks at what is giving the animal an advantage right now. This lack of long term planning is why 98% of species are currently extinct and the miserable fail rate of species points to a natural process instead of a designed one.

And I said there is and gave examples of how they feasibly could have happened although I admit that we don't have all of the answers yet.

I disagree that they were feasible and provided reasons.

And no one is saying that you need to have all the answers - the point is that if there is no feasible way in which something might have happened, then it could not have happened that way. That is the point. You do not need to have all, or any of the answers to show that something is feasible.

Your standards for feasiblity are too high when it comes to natural solutions and too low when it comes to supernatural solutions.

Your standards for feasiblity are too high when it comes to natural solutions and too low when it comes to supernatural solutions.

Too high? If you saw a Lambourghini in a field, would you accept the argument that it came about naturally even though no one could come up with any feasible way that it could? Would you argue that we set our standards too high?

The reality is that the complexity of a Lambourghini pales in comparison to the complexity of the simplest single cell.

Too high? If you saw a Lambourghini in a field, would you accept the argument that it came about naturally even though no one could come up with any feasible way that it could? Would you argue that we set our standards too high?

The reality is that the complexity of a Lambourghini pales in comparison to the complexity of the simplest single cell.

The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.

If I saw the car replicate on it's own with diversity in those replications and saw simpler forms of the car in the fossil layer. Yes I would think it got there on it own.

If I saw the car replicate on it's own with diversity in those replications and saw simplier forms of the car in the fossil layer. Yes I would think it got there on it own.

So, if I left a Lambourghini, a Austin mini and a Ford Model T in the field, I would have a believer in car evolution.

The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.

Maybe later I will post the diagram showing the internal chemical processes in a simple single cell.

A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.

Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.

Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)

It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.

So, if I left a Lamborghini, a Austin mini and a Ford Model T in the field, I would have a believer in car evolution.


No because your missing the self replication part. Evolution doesn't make sense unless all of the stipulations are met. Which they are all met by life on earth.

Maybe later I will post the diagram showing the internal chemical processes in a simple single cell.

I don't think we have the same idea of a simple cell.

A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.

Your evidence for this statement is? Or are your assuming evolution? If so then that is a circular argument - it must have been simpler because your assume your conclusion.


Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.

I am an engineer - I am very familiar with the workings of computers and the complexity is far greater than you seem to think. Making a statement like that is like saying that anyone could build a spacestation - after all it is just make up of bits of metal :D


Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)

It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.

Let's deal with the real world.

No because your missing the self replication part. Evolution doesn't make sense unless all of the stipulations are met. Which they are all met by life on earth.

So that is one of the questions - tell me how the first simple living cell evolved from inaminate matter.

See I used to believe in evolution so I know what the claims and stipulations are. The evidence does not support the claims of evolution. That is why I raised this and chose to examine these points from a scientific perspective to determine if they are feasible within the bounds of the theory of evolution. So far it appears that most evolutionists have faith that these things can just happen if you leave long enough time regardless of whether they are feasible or not.

Yes also tell us exactly how a living cell is different from a dead one or from an inanimate object with the same chemical makeup and where the life goes to at the moment of its death, and why we can't put it's life back in. Or how if a cell divides they both have the same life in each one, a doubling of life, each one can then die independently without affecting the other.

Tj3 if you knew anything about evolution you would know that it doesn't deal with the first living thing. Evolution only deals with the diversification of living things. So perhaps if you understood evolution you would continue to realize the fact of evolution. I don't know anything to tell you about that other than you are mistaken and if you can be mistaken about something that basic maybe you are mistaken about many many other things. What is even worse is that you continue to be mistaken even though you have been told this before is there something wrong with you that you don't get this?

What you are questioning is abiogenesis and I will fully state that we do not know how non-living matter becomes living matter. Now we have many hypothesises about how this happened but we don't know exactly. If you can prove god did it more power to you but you can't so until we know for certain we will continue to research this subject despite your objections.

yes also tell us exactly how a living cell is different from a dead one or from an inanimate object with the same chemical makeup and where the life goes to at the moment of its death, and why we can't put it's life back in. Or how if a cell divides they both have the same life in each one, a doubling of life, each one can then die independently without affecting the other.

I can tell you the difference between a live cell and a dead cell. The chemical reactions within that cell stop. The reason we can't turn life back on is because information is stored in the chemical reaction and unless we know that information we can't restore it and we haven't figured that out yet. The reason life can split and die independently of each other is the same reason you can split a fire and put one out and not the other.

:D
Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

If god has always been.
If god is perfect.
IF god exists
If god inspired the bible
If god is all powerful
If god doesn't have an end
If god is beyond our reasoning
If god is not responsible for evil
If god created the earth 6000 years ago
If god created the macaw
If god created fossils
If god created the eye
If god created thumbs
If god created poisons
If god ......
I could go on but I think you get my point well actually I know you don't get my point but I've reached the point at which others will get my point and I know no matter how many ifs I give you for your theory it doesn't matter because you will always fall back on god did it and never pursue real knowledge instead resting on the false knowledge of god did it and the reason I say it's false knowledge is because god did it has never been the correct answer we have never found a question that has been proven that the answer is god did it and I even think you will agree with me that we will never find scientific prove of god. There for if it is a scientific question the answer can't be god did it.


So why do you believe the "IFS" of evolutionists? Is it because it is the religion or faith that you prefer? :D

The simplest single cell was something akin to a ring of hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemicals, this is many orders of magnitude less complex than a car.

Is the Design Explanation Legitimate? (http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp)

" Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 base pairs[11]"


I doubt any car has 580,000 parts that have to fit perfectly and in correct sequence :eek:

A cell today is magnitudes more complex than the first cell would have been.

Anyway it is not as complicated as it seems. Like computers, they seem irreducible complex but it all boils down to on or off signals. And before you use that as a 'but computers were intellegntly designed' argument, I am using them as an example of how complex systems can be based on very simple principals.

Have you ever played the game of life?
John Conway's Game of Life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)

It shows how design and complexity can originate sponteously from a simple system.


How can the "simple" system of DNA be exactly right for transcription and translation?

Not only do you need dna but the enzymes the cell the aminoacids the cell machinery needed to make and modify protein etc... such a far cry from "simple"

Just like a computer code is not enough - who puts all the parts together?

so, if i left a lambourghini, a austin mini and a ford model t in the field, i would have a believer in car evolution.




:d Maybe if you wait long enough an inanimate car will become living :D

Tj3 if you knew anything about evolution you would know that it doesn't deal with the first living thing.

Then evolution has no answers because until there is a single living thing, there is no chance for evolution. If life is not feasible with a natural explanation, then you have just lost the whole debate.

The question to you was how did simple single cells come to be created naturally. I did not specify that it had to be by evolution. But even thwn no one has an answer.

Then evolution has no answers because until there is a single living thing, there is no chance for evolution. If life is not feasible with a natural explanation, then you have just lost the whole debate.

The question to you was how did simple single cells come to be created naturally. I did not specify that it had to be by evolution. But even thwn no one has an answer.

Evolution has no answers for why it rains either what's your point. Just because evolution doesn't say anything about how the first cell came about doesn't mean there isn't a natural solution.

As I have been saying and you seem to be incapable of understanding. There are many possible ways the first cell came to be. We however haven't been able to be certain which method is the correct one. Scientist unlike religious people like to be certain about things before they go around saying things are facts there for it takes longer than just saying god did it. You however wanted a possible answer so here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

:D


So why do you believe the "IFS" of evolutionists? Is it because it is the religion or faith that you prefer? :D

One because they are more likely to be true. It's easier to believe that a bird that swallows stones would get some mud with it, than to believe god poofed the bird into existence as it is and the devil then put things out there to make it seem like god didn't poof it into existence. It's like saying the world is flat but the devil changes the pictures to make the world appear round.

The other reason is because the answer has never been that a supernatural force did it. Never not once in fact has there ever been any proof of a supernatural force at all. So forgive me if I tend to believe answers that deal in reality rather than some force that has never been proven.

Evolution has no answers for why it rains either what's your point. Just because evolution doesn't say anything about how the first cell came about doesn't mean there isn't a natural solution.

Why are you creating strawmen arguments. I asked for a feasible explanation as to how this might occur naturally.

If you think that there is one, then out with it!


As I have been saying and you seem to be incapable of understanding. There are many possible ways the first cell came to be. We however haven't been able to be certain which method is the correct one.

And you cannot tell us one feasible way?


Scientist unlike religious people like to be certain about things before they go around saying things are facts there for it takes longer than just saying god did it.

I have a science degree, and I am going entirely based upon the evidence. Perhaps you are not aware, but the start of the scientific method is to observe, and then come forward with an feasible way in which that might occur.


You however wanted a possible answer so here you go.
YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4)

The other part of the scientific method is testing the theory. This theory has been tested by the top scientists in the field and so far has failed to produce life. I did notice the video used that magic ingredient of evolution - "and then after millions of years" as though something which could even start in a few years would somehow magically occur after millions of years.

Nice try though. I might add that YouTube would not be my idea of a highly credible scientific source.

Well I'm saying OSE itself doesn't exist!!
It's the if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it story. Some subjective person has to observe what you are calling objective.
If evolution is true, then there is no extinction, since one life form evolves into another. And if you are talking about survival of the fittest to reproduce, that sounds more like survival is based on luck rather than fitness, which seems to contradict itself.

If evolution is true, then there is no extinction, since one life form evolves into another.


That isn't true, there are plenty of evolutionary dead ends that did not lead to life today.



And if you are talking about survival of the fittest to reproduce, that sounds more like survival is based on luck rather than fitness, which seems to contradict itself.

Now here you are stepping onto the toes of some real evolutionary controversy- how much of an influence was natural selection and how much of an influence was luck and genetic drift.

That isn't true, there are plenty of evolutionary dead ends that did not lead to life today.

You are stating that as fact - the truth is there are ASSUMED evolutionary dead ends. It is a circular argument to call them evolutionary dead ends when evolution has not been proven.


Now here you are stepping onto the toes of some real evolutionary controversy- how much of an influence was natural selection and how much of an influence was luck and genetic drift.

That is not the question here - the question is whether you can propose a feasible means by which any of the examples came about by natural means.

Why are you creating strawmen arguments. I asked for a feasible explanation as to how this might occur naturally.
It's not a straw man argument evolution really doesn't have anything to do with how the first cell came to be. It covers the first replicating life form on. That's all that it talks about to say it involves anything else is wrong. I'm only going to tell you this so many times before I'm just going to start calling you troll.



I have a science degree.
Unless you are a leader in the field of biology and can prove you are who you say you are, this is meaning less. In fact this is less than meaning less this is detrimental to your argument because it means you can't back it up with your words but instead try to sound credibility through false information. So again claiming you have a degree in an Internet argument is pointless so don't do it.



Nice try though. I might add that YouTube would not be my idea of a highly credible scientific source.
Mine either though it still gave you one good idea of how life could have formed. Now it is your turn to say what part is impossible but again as I have said before we don't have a valid theory for how life came to be, we have several ideas but we aren't willing to say one is a fact yet. I know this thrills you because it allows you to build your straw man argument against evolutions because this mean we don't know everything. However it is perfectly acceptable to have god create the first cell and evolution would still be a fact.

It's not a straw man argument evolution really doesn't have anything to do with how the first cell came to be.

It is because I asked how it could occur naturally. I left it open for an explanation other than evolution, but you kept going back to evolution. But I perhaps evolution is the only hope for a natural occurrence, and it cannot explain how a living cell came to be therefore once again, there is no feasible natural explanation.


I'm only going to tell you this so many times before I'm just going to start calling you troll.

Sigh! Why do people feel the need to use personal abuse when the evidence does not go the way that they like.


Unless you are a leader in the field of biology and can prove you are who you say you are, this is meaning less. In fact this is less than meaning less this is detrimental to your argument because it means you can't back it up with your words but instead try to sound credibility through false information. So again claiming you have a degree in an Internet argument is pointless so don't do it.

If you are suggesting that no one can discuss anything on internet unless they are a leader in the field, then it would be a mighty quiet place. But the truth is that we have access to more resources from the leaders in the field than ever before.

But once again, you go after me because the evidence does not exist to support your position.


However it is perfectly acceptable to have god create the first cell and evolution would still be a fact.

So far the only feasible explanation that we have for the creation of the first living cell then is God.

Now what you are suggesting here is what is called theistic evolution. That is a position that I went to when I realized that the evidence for evolution did not support the theory. I found it to be the least defensible position, and I quickly found that I had to abandon it also.

However, that is getting off topic. If we start assuming that the first living cell was created and designed by an intelligent designer/creator, then that still leaves you with the challenge of coming up with a feasible approach by which these other examples could have occurred naturally.

Sigh! Why do people feel the need to use personal abuse when the evidence does not go the way that they like.

That only seems to happen to you. Maybe it's because you ignore evidence and use your own brand of reasoning.


If you are suggesting that no one can discuss anything on internet unless they are a leader in the field, then it would be a mighty quiet place. But the truth is that we have access to more resources from the leaders in the field than ever before.

Absolutely not this is another example of you totally missing the point of what people are saying perhaps you are incapable of comprehending. What I said is that saying you have a credential is useless on the internet unless you are a known leader in your field because you can't prove it otherwise, I could say I have doctorate from Berkley in biology and that's why I can say you don't know what your talking about but unless I'm willing give you proof of that it's completely pointless.


But once again, you go after me because the evidence does not exist to support your position.
If you ignore evidence or don't comprehend it. What else is there for me to do? If your just going to ingnore any evidence I give and say god did it you are a troll.


So far the only feasible explanation that we have for the creation of the first living cell then is God.

Prove it. Prove god has done anything. Anything all. Prove that a cell can't be created any other way than a all powerful all knowing god.

I'm willing to say we don't know everything. I will even say we may never know for certain how the first cell came to be after all it was over 3 billion years ago trying to solve a mystery that old may be impossible I still don't see unknown knowledge as evidence for god just as unknown knowledge.

I am still interested in also how your going to disprove the video I posted so far you said it's not valid but the only evidence you have is saying god did it.

That only seems to happen to you. Maybe it's because you ignore evidence and use your own brand of reasoning.

I note that once again you must resort to personal abuse. If you were willing to accept the scientific evidence where it leads, then you would not need to resort to such attacks.


Absolutely not this is another example of you totally missing the point of what people are saying perhaps you are incapable of comprehending.

More abuse.


What I said is that saying you have a credential is useless on the internet unless you are a known leader in your field because you can't prove it otherwise, I could say I have doctorate from Berkley in biology and that's why I can say you don't know what your talking about but unless I'm willing give you proof of that it's completely pointless.

Strawman argument. So far no one is using their credentials to validate their answers - unless I missed something.


If you ignore evidence or don't comprehend it. What else is there for me to do? If your just going to ingnore any evidence I give and say god did it you are a troll.

I have ignore nothing so far, but I see yet more abuse from you.


Prove it. Prove god has done anything. Anything all. Prove that a cell can't be created any other way than a all powerful all knowing god.

I am just following up on the statement in your mlast message. If you believe that you have a feasible method by which a living cell came into existence, then let's deal with it - post it, or provide answers to the issues that I raised with your "youtube video".


I'm willing to say we don't know everything. I will even say we may never know for certain how the first cell came to be after all it was over 3 billion years ago trying to solve a mystery that old may be impossible I still don't see unknown knowledge as evidence for god just as unknown knowledge.

To show something is feasible does not require that we know everything. I already responded to that strawman argument previously.


I am still interested in also how your going to disprove the video I posted so far you said it's not valid but the only evidence you have is saying god did it.

Perhaps you should actually read my messages. I actually said nothing of the sort and did not mention God at all in my response, but I did raise issues with the proposal based upon science.

BTW, as I said in the OP, if you respond with personal abuse, that is in and of itself an admission that you have no answers. If you continue to be abusive, then that would suggest to me that you have nothing more of substance to offer on the topic. Your position would be better served by acting in a mature respectful manner. Just some friendly advice.

Hello all ! Back from overseas again, and time to react to previous entries here.

BTW, I should take this opportunity to note that "Pericles" in the OP is a prior userid for Cred.
Indeed. But what has that to do with the question? I did not mention "Pericles" at all. Just as I did not mention in that same question that the "Tom" mentioned is one and the same as Tom Smith, wellknown at AW as Toms777 and here as Tj3.


Prior to this, as stated, there was concensus that there were two option - either natural evolution or creation by God.
Not correct. Toms memory seems to be very poor. It was Toms who "decided" that what he posted was covered by general consensus, nothwithstanding that there were two lines of thought : Toms religious peers who agreed, and all others who disagreed with Toms conclusion.


No one was able to put forward any third option.
As stated in the question : THAT IS NO OSE SUPPORT FOR "GOD'S" EXISTENCE.
But I (as Pericles) did propose several alternative options, which all were rejected by Toms. The same Toms, who can not produce any real OSE himself for "God's" existence. (Because that is impossible).


After these were posted many many times, "pericles" kept saying that he could not see the postings, ...
I never stated that I could not see the postings. I stated that I could not see the evidence for what Toms claimed to have posted (i.e. that that was evidence for "God's existence).


... In fact, except for one of these examples, no one was even able to come up with any possible explanation at all.
A complete lie. Many of these items were discussed "ad nauseum".
It is Toms who refuses to accept all alternatives, including that absence of proof for one view is no OSE for the opposite view.


Cred likes to call this a list. It never was a list. This is simply a compilation of a few of the examples which were posted on the other site which the evolutionist were unable to address.
Indeed I call it a list. A list, just as there can be thousands of such lists. Lists that do not prove anything. Because the existence of "God" can not be OSE proved in any way. All you can do is BELIEVE that.

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

.

.

Everyone will be talking about a different "God".... you have to be specific.
Dear Mary Sue : I fail to agree. For me the entire argument is about that you can not "prove" the existence of any entity by showing a list of queries and - if one disagrees with the reactions - declare such list "proof" for the existence of such entity.
Even a kindergarten student can understand that that is no proof...
As acceptable proof there is only one item : OSE for "God' existence" itself.
But as that can never be provided, all one can do is BELIEVE in such an entity.

:)

.

.

Tj3 to Michealb :

I note that once again you must resort to personal abuse.

More abuse.

Strawman argument.

I see yet more abuse from you.

Perhaps you should actually read my messages.
Yes, that is a typical Toms777 reaction.

Michealb : there is actually little sense in arguing with Toms777 (Tj3). He is wellknown for twisting words and meanings, and loves to post that he feels "abused" if you disagree with him, and/or show his "logic" to be totally invalid.

Toms list is - as I stated in the topic question - an interesting list, that can be replied to by evolutionists. Now or in the future. In full or when more evidence becomes available. But that is not the issue here.

The claimed lack of evidence for evolutionary queries is not - and can never be - OSE for the existence of a Creator. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be that. But as we all know such evidence is not and never will be available.

Toms list is nice list of queries for the evolution board. But it is no OSE for "God's existence"!!
Going into details on Toms list is a waste of time, if the target is the discussion of "God's" existence. There is no such evidence. And Toms list - and thousands of similar lists - can not change that...

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

.

.

Tj3 to Michealb :

Yes, that is a typical Toms777 reaction.

Yes, it is my reaction to abuse. I believe in respectful dialogue. When one party chooses to resort to abuse, that is an admission that they have no answers.


Toms list is - as I stated in the topic question - an interesting list, that can be replied to by evolutionists. Now or in the future.

A claim is empty when so far there have been no feasible answers given. Indeed you even admitted that evolution has no answer to how the first living cell originated.

I don't know why atheists like calling it a list - these are but a few of a large number of discrete examples. Maybe a fixation on lists :p


The claimed lack of evidence for evolutionary queries is not - and can never be - OSE for the existence of a Creator.

Science often looks at what is feasible, and when all non-feasible options are removed, accepts that as evidence of the remaining feasible option. Perhaps you are not aware that there is no direct evidence for many of the planets which have been found or sub-atomic particles found. Observations were made of other things happening and they looked at what feasible events would cause this evidence.

So you can reject this approach if you wish, but the approach that I am taking is both logic and scientific.

Indeed. But what has that to do with the question? I did not mention "Pericles" at all.

You need new glasses. Look under the Pond Scum example in your post.


Not correct. Toms memory seems to be very poor. It was Toms who "decided" that what he posted was covered by general consensus, nothwithstanding that there were two lines of thought : Toms religious peers who agreed, and all others who disagreed with Toms conclusion.

As you wish, Cred, but I asked the question for some time prior to posting the first example, and no one (that is right no one) disagreed with that approach, including you. The first person to disagree at any point was you, AFTER I had posted serveral of these examples and you had no answers.

But let's not just toss this back and forth like this. Let's resolve it here and now. If there is a third option, post it here.


I never stated that I could not see the postings.

A complete lie. Many of these items were discussed "ad nauseum".

Now who has memory problems :D


Indeed I call it a list. A list, just as there can be thousands of such lists.

As I said, it must be a "list fixation" with some folk! :p

He wasn't asking for direct evidence he is asking for objective supported evidence. Indirect evidence can be overwhelming as long as you have several different sources for that indirect evidence. Your twisting words again.

I am still waiting for you to disprove the video or prove god take your pick so far you have done neither.

He wasn't asking for direct evidence he is asking for objective supported evidence. Indirect evidence can be overwhelming as long as you have several different sources for that indirect evidence. Your twisting words again.

I am still waiting for you to disprove the video or prove god take your pick so far you have done neither.

Michael,

I guess that when the evidence does say what you'd like, you want different evidence. I understand that.

It appears that you do not wish to read what I said - now twice I have pointed out that I already responded to your video, but apparently yopu have not read my original post or the second one either.

You brought up God as the feasible answer to the first living cell - I didn't. You said (Post #63):

"However it is perfectly acceptable to have god create the first cell and evolution would still be a fact."

I then went on to agree that we could leave it there and that would leave you to provide feasible ways in which the other events could occur.

Now if this is the way that this topic is going to degenerate, then it appears that there is likely no more to discuss. I want to discuss the facts - if the barrel is dry on your end, then let's just conclude this now. I'd like to discuss the topic, but I honestly do not have time to play games. Do youn wish to have a serious respectful discussion or not?

:D
. What I said is that saying you have a credential is useless on the internet unless you are a known leader in your field because you can't prove it otherwise, I could say I have doctorate from Berkley in biology and that's why I can say you don't know what your talking about but unless I'm willing give you proof of that it's completely pointless.


I will even say we may never know for certain how the first cell came to be after all it was over 3 billion years ago trying to solve a mystery that old may be impossible I still don't see unknown knowledge as evidence for god just as unknown knowledge.

.

Even this evolutionary story telling site does not agree with your 3 billion year time frame.


Evolution From the Beginning to the First Cell. (http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html)

"About 1.3 billion years ago the first eukaryote (a single cell organism with a complex inner structure) "


Notice how there is no OSE for this - just theory. ;)


Genetic Explanation For Moles' Poor Eyesight (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020191534.htm)

Not a "religious site" nor a creationist site, but I point out their facts.




"The genetic information the authors amassed shows that the internal defects in the animals' eyes are not the result of an adult degenerative condition but because development of the eye lens fibres, which starts normally, is not completed. The expression of some genes that are central to eye development is also abnormal."

So the mole had sight, then due to abnormal genes LOST it?
How did the mole have sight in the first place? Is it use it or lose it? Why did natural selection and evolution develop a super sight that can "see" in no visible light?


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

But you want OSE that God exists, okay, I will pray that Cred, Michael B will post more anti- religious statements, and question God's existence. Lets see if it comes true :D

I wonder what, if anything, that atheists would accept as OSE for God. If I wandered through a field and found a house with a computer, a television, air-conditioning, and lights - would that be OSE that a person had been there even though I did not see the person, or have any evidence of human DNA? Or is that evidence of a naturally occurring event.

As I said before, scientists determine the existence, the size, mass and orbit of planets around other suns that they cannot see by looking at the wobble in the sun. Is that OSE for that planet? Yes, indeed it is, because there is no feasible alternative.

When scientists discover new sub-atomic particles, do they see them before they will accept their existence? No, many if not most have been discovered on the basis of the effect that they have because that is the only feaisble alternative to explain the effect.

What about gravity? We can see the effect, but we have no direct evidence of gravity itself. The same is true of time (which, BTW, is affected by gravity). And yet I would hope that everyone on here accepts the exists of both time and gravity.

I could go on and on. I wonder why when it comes to God, and the overwhelming evidence, why atheists who claim that they want scientific evidence, reject the scientific method and scientific standards? Is it because in their minds, the evidence points to something that they simply cannot and will not accept? If so, that is no longer science, but it is religion and they hold their beliefs on the basis of faith, not OSE.

What OSE is there for a natural start to life? Let's see what this scientific organization says:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly how life started is uncertain. Maybe dormant deep-frozen micro-organisms hitched a ride on a comet or asteroid. Maybe basic life first started deep beneath the surface, where conditions were more stable, and moved up through cracks and fissures as conditions above ground improved. Maybe the chemical soup in the oceans favoured simple self-replicating carbon-based molecules. These molecules might have increased in complexity and number over millions of years, until we have the diversity of life we see around us today. It is almost certain that all life developed from the same single source, as all life discovered relies on has the same complex molecule - DNA.
(Source: Natural Environmental Science Research Council (UK))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I am sure that Michael will enjoy this YouTube video as much as his last one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCWM3TqwcBw

A claim is empty when so far there have been no feasible answers given.
Indeed : the claim that "God" exists was never accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.


Indeed you even admitted that evolution has no answer to how the first living cell originated.
That is a deliberate lie. I really question here your repeated attempt to lie while you know it is a lie.
Is that the new general approach now for your Christian Discernment Resources and/or Last Days Bible Conference ?

All I stated was that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.


I don't know why atheists like calling it a list - these are but a few of a large number of discrete examples.
There is no doubt that this is a list of queries towards evolution. At the other hand it is not a list towards any format of OSE for "God's" existence.


Science often looks at what is feasible, and when all non-feasible options are removed, accepts that as evidence of teh remaining feasible option.
Precisely the reason why such arguments remain a hypothesis (= a proposition). They only become scientific facts or Theory when there is Objective Supporting Evidence.


Perhaps you are not aware that there is no direct evidence for many of the planets which have been found or sub-atomic particles found. Observations were made of other things happening and they looked at what feasible events would cause this evidence.
I never stated that science can prove everything today. See also the previous line I posted.
The Cern experiment is a perfect example on how a thesis is tested against the reality.
If Cern can not prove the various proposed sub-atomic particles to exist, they will remain a hypothesis till proven in the future by other experiments. It doesl not mean that such sub-atomic particles do not exist.


So you can reject this approach if you wish, but the approach that I am taking is both logic and scientific.
No it is not. It is NOT LOGICAL at all, and it is PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC - just as all other ICR "science"!!

To conclude : your "list" contains various interesting questions on evolution. But it does not contain a single iota of evidence for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!

THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD"!!

Anything else is based on BELIEF !

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

.

.

Indeed : the claim that "God" exists was never accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.

Same old, same old.

Apparently you have no answer to the questions raised.


That is a deliberate lie. I really question here your repeated attempt to lie while you know it is a lie.

False accusations get you nowhere. But prove me wrong - post the feasible answer as to how the first living cell occurred naturally.


All I stated was that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.

Thus evolution has no answer. And if there is no answer as to how life started, then the rest of the theory falls flat. You have nothing if creation does not occur in the first place.


I never stated that science can prove everything today

And no one ever asked for that.

I see no reason to respond to the rest. All your attempts to distract from the question shouts that you have no answer.

Indeed : the claim that "God" exists was never accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.
Same old, same old.But correct. The claim that "God" exists was NEVER accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.


Apparently you have no answer to the questions raised.
The questions on your list are questions about evolution. This topic's question was clear : it questioned the validity of your "list" towards it's claimed "proof" for the existence of "God". That validity is however zero. I have no need to reply to your evolution questions here. Try the evolution board for that.


Indeed you even admitted that evolution has no answer to how the first living cell originated.
That is a deliberate lie. I really question here your repeated attempt to lie while you know it is a lie.
False accusations get you nowhere. But prove me wrong - post the feasible answer as to how the first living cell occurred naturally.
Your original statement I refer to here is indeed a deliberate lie.
Any questions towards evolution are irrelevant in this respect. See my previous line.



All I stated was that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.
Thus evolution has no answer.
Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell.


I see no reason to respond to the rest. All your attempts to distract from the question shouts is that you have no answer.
Of course you don't like to respond. Because you know that your list is no "proof" for the existence of "God".

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!

THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

Anything else is based on BELIEF !

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

.

.

But correct. The claim that "God" exists was NEVER accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.

Keep singing that chorus - maybe it will help drown out the facts.


The questions on your list are questions about evolution.

I asked only for a natural explanation - have another look. Perhaps you are trying to point to evolution because you know evolution has no answers, and you are trying to avoid that fact that there is no other answer either.

Read this line from my original post:

"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."

So far, this has been your primary response. If there are answers, post them here and now.

Keep singing that chorus - maybe it will help drown out the facts.
Facts? You mean these claims you posted ?
The claim that "God" exists was NEVER accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.

:D


I asked only for a natural explanation - have another look. Perhaps you are trying to point to evolution because you know evolution has no answers, and you are trying to avoid that fact that there is no other answer either.
You can ask whatever you like. I have no problems with your questions.
I have a problem with your conclusion!!


Read this line from my original post: "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."
Interesting response from someone who posts lie after lie after lie (and get caught time and time again)...

Next to that : your "list" contains queries to some views on evolution. I have no problem with that, but leave it to evolutionists to answer these on the evolution board.
I have a problem with your wild conclusion that your list "proves" the existence of "God".
That is illogical, pseudo-scientific nonsense.


So far, this has been your primary response. If there are answers, post them here and now.
This is the Religious Discussions board, not the Evolution board.
Your list of queries are to be replied to on the Evolution board.

This topic on this board is about the CONCLUSION you draw from your "list". A CONCLUSION that is illogical, pseudo-scientific, and nonsensical.

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!

THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

Anything else is based on BELIEF !

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

.

.

Cred,

I see that you have no answers, and all you are interested in is time wasters.

Should you ever come up with answers, and choose to discuss respectfully, I am interested.

I do not, however, have time to waste with someone who clearly does not wish to engage in a mature respectful discussion of the issues.

I see that you have no answers, and all you are interested in is time wasters.
I have answers. But I will not post them here, because they are off-topic.
You claim to have "proof" for the existence of "God", but you fail to provide that "proof"!

Your repeated attempt to debate your queries on evolution instead of the topic itself is actually the only real time wasting here, but it allows me to show all here your rejectable mode of operation !
Next to that : your "list" has nothing to do with "proof" for the existence of "God"!!


Should you ever come up with answers, and choose to discuss respectfully, I am interested.
I will not. At least not here. Try the Evolution board. And about respectful discussions :
Since when is YOUR repeated lying respectfully? Matthew 7:3!!


I do not, however, have time to waste with someone who clearly does not wish to engage in a mature respectful discussion of the issues.
Oh, my "engagement" here is mature, respectful, and to the point.
And MY responses do not contain lies.

Note : this topic on this board is not about the items on your "list" of Evolution queries.
This topic is about the CONCLUSION you draw from your "list". A CONCLUSION that is illogical, pseudo-scientific, and nonsensical.

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!

THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

Anything else is based on BELIEF !

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

.

.

I have answers. But I will not post them here, because they are off-topic.

You started the thread here, now you refuse to answer (as you have on two boards now), but rather post abuse and false accusations. As I said, when you are serious about a respectful mature discussion, let me know.

See Cred , God answered my prayers, you continue to question His existence.

There is our OSE !:D

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 ?

:)

.

.



Let’s see if I understand your question; you want objective evidence (a scientific measure) to prove the existence of God? So, you want to measure God through science? You want somebody to pickup and place God, (a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being) in your hands for proof?

Let me know when you get an answer!

JoeT

Why not anything that powerful should be able to be measured. I'm only half that powerful and I can be measured.

By the way the reason I say only half is because it's impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Why not anything that powerful should be able to be measured. I'm only half that powerful and I can be measured.

You can only fantasize about being half as powerful as God.


By the way the reason I say only half is because it's impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Really? And your proof that there is no omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere is the universe is? Show us the OSE!

Let’s see if I understand your question; you want objective evidence (a scientific measure) to prove the existence of God? So, you want to measure God through science? You want somebody to pickup and place God, (a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being) in your hands for proof?
Let me know when you get an answer!JoeT
How are you doing, Joe ?

No : I do not need the answer to that. I just query Tommy Smith's wild claim that he can provide proof for the existence of "God" with some questions about the evolution.
Note that I have no problems with these queries , but with Tommies conclusion, and with his claim that what he BELIEVES is factual !
He simply can not provide (OSE) proof for the existence of "God" , but fails to admit that...

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

.

.

How are you doing, Joe ?
No : I do not need the answer to that. I just query Tommy Smith's wild claim that he can provide proof for the existence of "God" with some questions about the evolution.
Note that I have no problems with these queries , but with Tommies conclusion, and with his claim that what he BELIEVES is factual !
He simply can not provide (OSE) proof for the existence of "God" , but fails to admit that ....


Cred,

Denial does not make the proof any less valid. You claim that you have answers, but you refuse to provide them :D

Tom

Denial does not make the proof any less valid.
No denial does not do that. I note that as you so far failed to provide any real OSE for the existence of "God" it is nothing but a claim that you just BELIEVE in!! So there is no valid proof from your side.


You claim that you have answers, but you refuse to provide them
I do not claim anything (that's just another one of your lies).
I refuse on a religious discussion board to discuss your queries on evolution. Because these queries have nothing to do with the topic here.
The topic is about your CLAIMED evidence for the existence of "God" for which you so far failed to provide any OSE, notwithstanding all the hot air you are blowing into the topic...

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

.

.

Really? And your proof that there is no omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere is the universe is? Show us the OSE!

Okay if someone or something is omniscient it knows what it would be doing two days from now. In order for the being to be omnipotent it would have to be able to change what it was doing two days from now. However if it changes what it was doing proving it is omnipotent it disproves that it is omniscient because it should have know that it was going to do something different if it was omniscient. There for if you are omniscient you can't be omnipotent because you can't change it and if you can change it your not omniscient because you didn't know what was going to happen.

There for logic proves that there can not be a omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere. You can't be both because they contradict each other. I know the whole story about god being beyond our logic and comprehension and what not. However until he proves of that I'm going with logic. Also even several bible stories point out that the god of the bible is not omniscient or omnipotent by not knowing things (Adam and the apple, The devil plotting against him, Abraham being willing to kill his child, children making fun of him when he was a bald man and many many others.)

No denial does not do that. I note that as you so far failed to provide any real OSE for the existence of "God" it is nothing but a claim that you just BELIEVE in !!! So there is no valid proof from your side.

Keep claiming it, Cred, and maybe someday you will actually convince yourself to BELIEVE that there is no OSE for God!

Okay if someone or something is omniscient it knows what it would be doing two days from now. In order for the being to be omnipotent it would have to be able to change what it was doing two days from now. However if it changes what it was doing proving it is omnipotent it disproves that it is omniscient because it should have know that it was going to do something different if it was omniscient. There for if you are omniscient you can't be omnipotent because you can't change it and if you can change it your not omniscient because you didn't know what was going to happen.

You are simply playing wordgames. Just like the silly questions that atheists used to use - how may angels can dance on the head of a pin, or can God make a rock so heavy that he can't move it.

Just silly word games.

Keep claiming it, Cred, and maybe someday you will actually convince yourself to BELIEVE that there is no OSE for God!
"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.
Your words, Tommy. Not mine ! Your own wild hot air claims, unsupported by any OSE.

All you can do is BELIEVE that ! But you can not OSE support a single iota of that claim!!

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

.

.

Really silly word games is that the best you can come up with. I don't care if you make up new words to describe god but it would help your case if you at least made the definition of that word logical. I mean wouldn't you be less likely to believe me if I said I saw a one legged man with two legs than if I had said I saw a one legged man. Also it's very hypocritical of you to say god is the logical conclusion and later discount logic as silly.

Also as far as your two other questions.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Infinite numbers. Angels are an abstract a thought there for there is no limit to how many thoughts can fit on the head of a pin because of course thoughts aren't physical.
As to if I can make a rock so heavy not even I could lift it?
No, however this does not mean I'm not omnipotent. It just means I can only do things based in logic. Since I am omnipotent I have the most power. If I create a rock that I couldn't lift it, it would be in sense be more powerful than me and since I am the most powerful the rock can not be more powerful than me logically.

Here are a few questions for you, not my own though.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus

Really silly word games is that the best you can come up with.

Well it is. I would hope that no adult would seriously use such a silly argument, unless it was meant as a joke - because, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously propose such an argument.

I note that I was more than willing to use purely scientific evidence and the scientific method, and atheists appear to avoid it, and other atheists simple try to use abusive attacks (i.e. Cred). I wonder why:D Are the facts not good enough?

Really you say god is two things that it logically can't be when your whole argument was that god was a logical solution and your going to call me childish and silly when I call you on it. Really?! I mean it's god you can make up any solution you want for the problem and it can't be proven or disproven. So you have tons of options here and you went with silly and childish. I'm sure some bible thumping web site has at least a half decent response to the problem if you can't think of one on your own.

JoeT consequently,
Okay if someone or something is omniscient it knows what it would be doing two days from now. In order for the being to be omnipotent it would have to be able to change what it was doing two days from now. However if it changes what it was doing proving it is omnipotent it disproves that it is omniscient because it should have know that it was going to do something different if it was omniscient. There for if you are omniscient you can't be omnipotent because you can't change it and if you can change it you’re not omniscient because you didn't know what was going to happen.

Therefore logic proves that there cannot be a omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere. You can't be both because they contradict each other. I know the whole story about god being beyond our logic and comprehension and what not. However until he proves of that I'm going with logic. Also even several bible stories point out that the god of the bible is not omniscient or omnipotent by not knowing things (Adam and the apple, The devil plotting against him, Abraham being willing to kill his child, children making fun of him when he was a bald man and many many others.)

While explaining God’s omnipotence it is not enough to say that God can do all things that are possible; rather the definition must be expanded to say, for God all things are possible. Therefore, logic dictates that an omniscient God can change his mind since “No word shall be impossible with God“ (Luke 1:37 ), (Cf. Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3) Furthermore, that God is omniscient doesn’t depend on His omnipotence, rather God’s omniscience is part of his omnipotence (all powerful, by definition must include all knowing). (Cf. Summa I Q VIII a.2). Thus, it’s easy to imagine scenarios explaining why an omnipotent God may have changed His mind – or to have appeared to change His mind.

Consequently, we see a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient. Wouldn’t you think, that in the same way we scratch a temporal itch with temporal things, we would scratch a spiritual itch spiritually?

JoeT

Really you say god is two things that it logically can't be

Like I said - with all due respect, I cannot really believe that anyone over the age of 10 would think such an argument was logical.

Get real.

BTW, as for your other word game:

------------
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
------------

Keep in mind that if God did indeed remove all evil, that no one including you is without sin, therefore God would have to destroy everyone that exists. Instead God is longsuffering and merciful. And you think that somehow you have the right to judge God for showing mercy?

Now, can we get off the silly word games and have a serious discussion on the questions at hand (that you now appear to be avoiding).

If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.

As I said you can make up a new word for how powerful god is if you want but it doesn't make sense to use those two. I don't see what the problem is. I mean if I was going to make up a god I'd at least make his powers make sense.

Of course millions of people fall victum to religion each year and follow men as gods without any proof or sense, so should I really be surprise when follow an unearthly god without logic or reason.

If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.

Sure, he could have taken away free will. But He didn't thorough His choice.

Now, can you address the questions at the start of this thread, or are you taking Cred's line that he knows the answers but won't tell us?

I'm taking the stance that for your particular objective it doesn't matter what answers I give because regardless of what I say your going to say that it is not possible and that god is the only solution. There for the answers to the question become irrelevant and we have to discuss the fallacy of your conclusion instead in order to move the debate along.

Here are a few questions for you, not my own though.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus


Evil was defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the cross! :D
God is all good, anything other than God is not good, or evil.
But we inherit God's righteousness, again, by the blood of Jesus. :)

I'm taking the stance that for your particular objective it doesn't matter what answers I give because regardless of what I say your going to say that it is not possible and that god is the only solution.

That is not true. Remember, I am a former evolutionist. I defended evolution for years. I will examine whatever you put forward from a scientific perspective as I did earlier in this thread. You were unable or unwilling to respond to the rebuttals.

It is interesting that I am approaching this scientifically, and it is the atheists who chose to bring God into the argument.

If god is omnipotent he could remove the evil without harming others kind of the definition of omnipotent. You really lack creativity.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus

c. 341–270 B.C. Greek philosopher held that good is defined by what feels pleasurable or avoids pain, conversely, what is evil or bad is defined as what feels bad or is painful.


Is God willing to prevent evil: this statement presumes that what we call “evil” is evil in the eyes of God. Christians would hold that sin (evil) is corruption of the human will, not what feels bad. “I directed my attention to discern what I now heard, that free will was the cause of our doing evil, and Your righteous judgment of our suffering it.” Augustine, “The Confessions (Book VII), 3. Thus we see that God’s creation is all good, even that of men who have a concupiscence. Then, where does evil come from, ‘As Augustine says (Contra Julian. i): "The Lord calls an evil will the evil tree, and a good will a good tree." Now, a good will does not produce a morally bad act, since it is from the good will itself that a moral act is judged to be good. Nevertheless the movement itself of an evil will is caused by the rational creature, which is good; and thus good is the cause of evil.’ Summa I, 49, a.1

But not able? : That is, some say, that God is not able to prevent evil. In response, given man’s concupiscent nature, it’s not God’s inability to cooperate with his good; rather it’s man’s error. Thus sin is permitted though our weakness. Even still, God provides his strength to overcome this concupiscent nature though cooperation with His will. To the argument that an omnipotent God can stop all evil pretends that he hasn’t already done so. He gives us his remedy through Jesus Christ who will conquer all evil.

Thus Epicurus’ argument becomes specious, and subjective to the nature of Epicurus: what feels good is virtuous, what feels bad is evil. In fact, since sin is the failure of man’s will we see that the argument can be rephrased:

Is Man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. [A true statement]
Is man able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. [A true statement]
Is man both able and willing? Then evil comes from man. [A true statement]
Is man neither able nor willing? Then he is a sinner. [A true statement]

Normally, we can’t come to know God independent of our experience (a priori knowledge) However St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent. I, xiii) provides with a postpriori knowledge 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

Let's get back to the purpose of this question. Let's deal with the questions one at a time:

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

Answers anyone?

All:

Atheists often use evolution as an intellectual excuse for rejection of God. The ideology is that God didn't create man; rather he evolved from some primordial puddle of ooze. Some would extend this further, and say man then evolved to create God.

The Darwinian theory of evolution depends on mankind's ability to axiomatically define our observable surroundings and explain how sustained life can be perceived in nature without the aid of God. To do this, science depends wholly on mankind's ability to identify those things not perceived in nature and how they affect our measure nature. Thus, we can conclude that Darwinian science holds that to know absolute truth, one only need to know math, chemistry, physics, and biology; not to mention a dozen or so other natural sciences. These rationalist clerics of science have turned the supernatural question of “how did God make heaven and earth” into “prove that God made heaven and earth.” The problem with science's approach is best expressed by G. K. Chesterton observation, “A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed.” (1905 Heretics )

In 1953 Stanley Miller's experiment for the first time produced the basic building blocks of proteins necessary for all life; a primordial soup of amino acids in a strictly controlled experiment. The problem was that the experiment was conducted in a mixture of methane and ammonia not found in the prebiological environment. In 1983 the experiment was repeated by Miller using a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen now thought to be the prebio conditions. The experiment failed to produce the goo of life. In 2007 the experiment was redone by chemist Jeffrey Bada; repeating the experiment again, this time changing the reactive mixture once again. This constrained experiment finally produced primordial soup. Only under strictest of laboratory conditions can the very basic building blocks of life be produced. But, beyond that science using Darwinaianism show how “intelligent” life is then derived. The probabilities of this being repeated in nature are slime to none (Pun was intended).

To date, science has failed to produce a realistic, repeatable, unconstrained theory explaining creation of the simplest of life forms. Furthermore, it cannot produce a plausible theory of how the first proteins evolved in nature. Even doing so, science would be faced with the enormous problem explaining how prebio conditions were stable and sustained for sufficient time for these basic proteins to form an amino acid linked in a group. Science's difficulties get exponentially enormous when explaining how this simplest of these linked chains remained in equilibrium to form genes that, to add more complexity, form chromosomal chains of DNA. Logically, we would expect the most simple of these chains to form first somehow, magically presumably; and then, change to chromosomes of sufficient self-knowledge to reproduce, first to a simple one cell organism, then to a more complex organism, finally through billions of years, billions of self initiated changes (a yet unknown process), morph into the one, and only one, sentient, self-aware being.

The scientist has thus far failed to explain how simple chains of amino acids, through successive changes, evolve into a complex animal or plant, they certainly can't explain how an amino acid chemically reacts with an agent to become self-aware.

As shown, the probabilities of man rising from a pool of primordial goo by chance are infinitely improbable, so much so as to be nonexistent; you would need a firm “faith” in the science to hold these views. In fact they are so improbable that only God could unravel the complexities. Therefore, it would be more intellectually honest to turn science back to measuring God's laws so as to define His creation, as opposed to asking nature to prove man created God.

Considering the inadequacies of science, my question to the atheist is how a sentient, self-aware being came into existence from amino acids, through natural selection, to become what we know as man? When, where, and how, do amino acids become aware enough to know that cell division is necessary to sustain life. It seems to me that cooperating with His supernatural grace provides the best answer; God created heaven, earth, and man; the how is only important in the need to know the details of His natural laws. Comments?

JoeT

I think you two are going a bit advanced for your knowledge of evolution and biochemistry so lets see if we can simplify it can get a few things we agree on.
Let see if you agree with this.

Every cell if we had sufficient technology could be broken down into non living chemical componets and if we broke down those chemical componets further we would have plain atoms.

if we had sufficient technology could be broken down

Which was exactly one of my points.


if we broke down those chemical componets further we would have plain atoms.

Atoms don't contain the chemical knowledge to coalesce to form molecules, which in turn form cells. Nor does DNA have the chemical knowledge to “come alive” or have sufficient awareness to multiply. Nor does chromosomal material have sufficient knowledge to be self aware. Show me in the chemical composition where chemistry ends and life begins. I'm waiting to see this one. Oh yes, pipe dreaming about having sufficient knowledge or technology doesn't cut it. So where does life come from in chemistry if it wasn't created? From the GOO?

JoeT

I think you two are going a bit advanced for your knowledge of evolution and biochemistry so lets see if we can simplify it can get a few things we agree on.
Let see if you agree with this.

I would suggest that you take the time to deal with the issue rather tyhan making derogatory comments regarding the knwoledge of those about whom you know nothing. You may find that it is the opposite which is true.


Every cell if we had sufficient technology could be broken down into non living chemical componets and if we broke down those chemical componets further we would have plain atoms.

Why do you not think that we have the technology?

Why is it that when tghese same checmical are brough together that life does not occur? What is it that gives life?

Joe,

It looks like we were writing messages at the same time!

Great minds think alike. ;)

Yea... great minds... who both didn't say whether you agree that cells are made of atoms.

That's all I'm asking are cells made of atoms? It's a simple enough question.

I'll answer the other questions but first we need to get on the same playing field because if we can't agree on the basics I'm wasting my time trying to go any deeper than that.

Atheists often use evolution as an intellectual excuse for rejection of God.Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

Yea...great minds...who both didn't say whether or not you agree that cells are made of atoms.
Please, spare me.


That's all I'm asking are cells made of atoms? It's a simple enough question.
I realize you have something very insightful to tell us, so let’s get on with it. Yes cells are made up of atoms.


I'll answer the other questions but first we need to get on the same playing field because if we can't agree on the basics I'm wasting my time trying to go any deeper than that.
It’s not likely we’ll be on the same page, but the suspense is killing me. But please don’t waste your time on my behalf.

JoeT

JoeT777 - excellent posts 108 and 110 - thank you.


Michaelb:
Yes, cell are made of atoms.

Explain to me, how these atoms became a cell that can reproduce and carry information.

I'll assume Tj3 agrees with this as well. So we have something we agree on. Good.

I'll hand out three questions this time.

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

MichaelB

Using this knowledge, why don't you produce a living cell from atoms and chemical reaction.

By the way... Frankenstein says Happy Halloween :D

Inthebox I'll get to why we aren't doing that later as I said. In order for you to understand the process we have to set up some preconditions first because without a certain level of knowledge, theories of abiogenesis are to complex. So we have to break it down. Which is what I'm doing.

Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

NeedKarma:

I was relating to my own experiences; and yes atheists do, and have used, the Darwinian theory of evolution as argument that there is no God. Darwin's theories suggest a break in the chain of first efficient cause. Darwin's theories postulate that life was formed by chance - God isn't the cause of existence of life. As expressed here it's my opinion that the chances are so remote any formation of life should be considered an aberrant anomaly. Thus, evolution turns humanity into deviant abnormality; something not found in nature. Malformed life, anomalies, don't survive in nature long engough, or are unable to reproduce.

“Atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not”, is a meaningless analytic proposition; because It's precisely the fact that they don't believe in God is why they are called atheists. This wondrous bit of wisdom doesn't move us one point closer to Credendovidis' question; is there objective supported evidence for “God's” existence? My original post in effect stated that there is no scientific objective truth that proves the existence of God. In fact I found such a concept to be odd because God is spiritual and the only analytical tools available are temporal.

However, St. Thomas does illustrate a postpriori knowledge of God that can be advantageous to our understating of the cosmos. It's actually simple;

1) Everybody in motion was moved by a force from an unmovable being. By extending this we argue that universe was placed in motion by God. Can you provide an alternative?
2) Likewise, everything that can be conceived has an efficient cause. There is a finite order of efficient causes. God is that being for whom there is no efficient cause; which we call the first efficient cause.
3) At some point in time there was nothing in existence; as all things come into existence over time. Without a creator who existed in the beginning this becomes absurd. Therefore, we can conclude that the existence of God is of itself its own necessity and not proceeding from another things necessity.
4) The measured perfections of existence in the universe can only be understood in comparison with a real and absolute being as a standard, i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.
5) The perfect order of our existence in nature evidence of creation by a designer who directs all natural things to their end, of whom we call God.

JoeT

Yea...great minds...who both didn't say whether or not you agree that cells are made of atoms.

And here you were making remarks about others and what they know, and you don't even know if matter is made of atoms. Heck, if you want to go back to first principles. Why don't we discuss what an atom is made up of, or an electron, or a quark, or a neutrino, or a photon...

Why don't we just all take a course in quantum physics - no wait why don't you, I already have a degree which requires an understanding of quantum physics (I mention this because you apparently don't think that anyone else knows anything - just you).

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be?

Just to correct you. Atheists would never use evolution as an excuse for the rejection of god since an atheist doesn't care if a god exists or not. In an atheist mind there is no god to reject.

If they don't reject God for a reason, then what you are saying by definition is that their belief that there is no God is not rational.

I agree.

I'll assume Tj3 agrees with this as well. So we have something we agree on. Good.

I'll hand out three questions this time.

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.

2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.

3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

Spontaneous generation of life has not been proven. Furthermore, it's not likely to ever be proven. The theory suggests that the building blocks of life existed on earth some 4-Billion years ago - which hasn't been shown to be true. And, they must remaine stable for Billions of years so that the proto-life could be established. The earth is known to be a volatile place for billions of years - so this isn't likely.

There are several models suggested for spontaneous generation of life, none of which has yet synthesized a proto-cell; none has come close. Nor has any approached a workable hypothesis that identifies at which point in the process that a chemical process turns into sustainable life. Also, scientists have yet to discern the amino acids that “trigger” reproduction, awareness, but more important, self-awareness.

But, I'm repeating myself. See post 108 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-11.html#post1350173)

You're swatting at fleas with a hammer. Suppose you are able to turn a bucket of amino acids (goo) into some semblance of life. You still haven't shown “first cause.” See my post. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-12.html#post1350815)

JoeT

I'll hand out three questions this time.

I see that you are studiously avoiding the OP, and the issues raised there. I don't blame you. Trying to deal with those would be an absolute disaster for your point of view.

Where is the OSE for your belief that there is no God?

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be?

As I've said I will address abiogenises but we need to answer some basics established first because we can debate the top of the pyramid if we disagree on what makes up its base.

I'm not avoiding the op question I'm establishing a base line for the discussing the first cell.

So is the answer yes to all 3 questions because if it is we can go on to other points or do you dispute any of the three?

I'll give the next question assuming you argee on the other 3.

Is it possible for organic compounds to form in the absence of life under any conditions? Things like fatty acids and nucleotides.

As I've said I will address abiogenises but we need to answer some basics established first because we can debate the top of the pyramid if we disagree on what makes up its base.

The point is that if you think that what you claim to be facts are true, it is for you to establish that they are true. Even if I did agree with you on all these points (and I don't), it would mean nothing because science is based on facts, not whether you can get three people on internet to agree. And if you think that getting three people to agree establishes a fact, then by the fact that anyone disagrees with one or more of your claims, your argument therefore would become false.


I'm not avoiding the op question I'm establishing a base line for the discussing the first cell.

No you are not establishing a baseline. Establishing a baseline requires that you prove a factual basis for your claims - you have not done so. You are trying to hijack the thread, and avoid the OP.

You did not tell us how life came to be.

And now that you raise the question - how did these various sub-atomic particles come to be? How about neutrinos? Photons?

1.The fist question is on the age of the earth. Are we in agreement that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old give or take a billion it really doesn't matter but the question is do we agree that earth is really old? This is important because most theories of abiogenesis and evolution require this. So if this is debatable we need to discuss this first because without this large time frame evolution becomes less likely so we need to establish this first.
I've conceded this already


2.The next question assumes you all agreed on the age of the earth. Have the element that make up a cell been on earth since it first cooled and liquid water formed. Elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and iron.
Wikipedia would suggest the following composition:
Primary Methane, Ammonia , Water , Hydrogen sulfide , Carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide , and Phosphate , with molecular oxygen and ozone rare. Other sources would suggest that this is the current thinking.


3.Are you familiar with self replicating chemical reactions? These are molecules that replicate themselves as long as they have the raw elements that they are made of available and have an energy source or catalyst. Are you aware that these types of molecules exist and do you understand the basic principles behind how they work?

I understand the basic principles but I don't believe that conditions on the surface of the earth would have been stable for sufficient periods for life to have taken hold without a creator.

But in either case get on with your argument. Pare it down and spit it out; my attention span has already been stretched to the limit.

JoeT

I've conceded this already

I wouldn't. And indeed, even if it were true, if something cannot be shown to be feasible, adding any amount of time that one wishes will not help. Any accountant knowns that zero times anything is still zero. But athesist seems to thing that if you add a few billion years, it is like a wand and one need not apply normal; scientific principles for that timeframe.

I'm not buying that story. I expect that if he plans to use the magic billion year wand theory, that he validate how it can happen, and not just say "presto, after a billion years it happens". That is not science.


But in either case get on with your argument. Pare it down and spit it out; my attention span has already been stretched to the limit.

My thoughts exactly. He seems to be trying to stretch it out as long as possible to distract from the OP, and I can understand how someone with his beliefs might wish to avoid the issue at hand.

If he has a point to make, then he should provide the evidence to demonstrate that his claims are factual. The validity of facts does not depend upon one or more people agreeing, but it does require validation that will withstand examination.

If your god does exist how did he/she/it come into being?
If this all powerful entity which can do wonders and miracles
Was created then a more powerful being/entitiy must have created it.
This then means a further being/entity even more powerful must have
Created that one and so on.
No doubt you will say your god has always existed, which is no answer, but a cop out!
A bit like the bible, full of inconsistancies and obvious contradictions.
Anyway, how do you know your god is the correct one? What about all the
Other religions. I don't mean judaism and islam as they worship the same god.
Why do we need people to interprate god's will, and they can't decide amongst
Themselves what that interpretation is, why doesn't he/she/it speak to us all without
Any ambiguous and meaningless fireworks?
It seems to me that religion is a great way of controlling people and fleecing them of their money etc. There are just too many gullable people in the world today!
I would suggest you avail yourselves of Prof Richard Dawkins' books and videos
Which will enable you to open your evolved eye and actually accept the world for what it is and not what you would wish it to be.
Davers

If they don't reject God for a reason, then what you are saying by definition is that their belief that there is no God is not rational.I didn't say that, you did. It's the same as saying there is a giant purple teapot in the sky, the fact that it has no bearing on my life doesn't mean I'm irrational.

I didn't say that, you did. It's the same as saying there is a giant purple teapot in the sky, the fact that it has no bearing on my life doesn't mean I'm irrational.

I know that you did not say that, but for something to be rational, there must be a reason. That is the measing of the word "rational" - check it out. So if you are denying God without a reason, then that denial is not rational, by definition.

I also did not say that you are irrational. I said that your belief that there is no God is not rational if there is no reason for it. And again, for something to be rational, there must be a reason for it.

If your god does exist how did he/she/it come into being?

God has existed from eternity.

If not knowing where God came from keeps you from believing in God, then tell me, how did electrons comes into being? Do you know? Do you believe that they exist? Or do you deny the existence of electrons because you don't know how they came to be?

How did life come to be?



A bit like the bible, full of inconsistancies and obvious contradictions.

Years ago, I took on a lot of those cut and paste claimed contradictions that people got from websites on internet, and found none that held up to the light of day. I am speaking at a conference in 2 weeks on the very topic of whether the Bible is credible, and whether there are contradictions and inconsistencies!

But this is not the "let's attack Christianity thread". If you want to do that, or discuss these claimed contradictions, start your own thread. This one is to discuss the scientific evidence for the existence of a creator as indicated in the OP.

I know that you did not say that, but for something to be rational, there must be a reason. That is the measing of the word "rational" - check it out. So if you are denying God without a reason, then that denial is not rational, by definition.

I also did not say that you are irrational. I said that your belief that there is no God is not rational if there is no reason for it. And again, for something to be rational, there must be a reason for it.Ok. If this helps you be stronger in your beliefs than so be it. Have a great day!

Ok. If this helps you be stronger in your beliefs than so be it. Have a great day!

It does nothing for my beliefs for you to believe that there is no God. I am telling you the facts - look in your own dictionary if you don't believe me.

Ok. Bye.

Ok. Bye.

Bye. Enjoy your weekend!

Back to the topic.

How did this animal come to be through natural means?

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

My point is that you will never understand point E if you don't know points A B C D first. That's why I'm trying to find out what points you agree with and which you don't. As I said in the beginning though you apparently aren't interested in a debate or knowledge you just want to push your agenda.

If you would like to question one the question I've post so far please explain why you don't agree with it so we can have some where to start.

My point is that you will never understand point E if you don't know points A B C D first.

And my point is that if you hwant to establish something as a "fact", you need to put forward the basis for believing it to be fact. That is the scientific approach. If you believe some points need to be validated first, then put forward that point with the scientific validation.


That's why I'm trying to find out what points you agree with and which you don't. As I said in the beginning though you apparently aren't interested in a debate or knowledge you just want to push your agenda.

Give up on the personal shots. They get you nowhere. Take the time to do your research and present a scientific based argument and stay on topic.

How do I know want I need to establish as fact if when I ask if you agree with something you don't answer?

I'm trying to determine where exactly are the weak points so we can debate those instead of wasting time on things we both take as fact.

How do I know want I need to establish as fact if when I ask if you agree with something you don't answer?

If you don't know what the scientific basis is for your porposition, and thus what you need to establish as fact, don't expect others to know. You need to put forward your own argument, and do your own research.


I'm trying to determine where exactly are the weak points so we can debate those instead of wasting time on things we both take as fact.

Then stop beating around the bush as Joe also suggested and come out with your theory. That is, BTW, the way that scientists do it. They lay their cards in the open on the table for peer review. They don't beat around the bush hiding what they are trying to say.

How do I know want I need to establish as fact if when I ask if you agree with something you don't answer?

If you don't know what the scientific basis is for your porposition, and thus what you need to establish as fact, don't expect others to know. You need to put forward your own argument, and do your own research.


I'm trying to determine where exactly are the weak points so we can debate those instead of wasting time on things we both take as fact.

Then stop beating around the bush as Joe also suggested and come out with your proposition.

Back to the topic.

How did this animal come to be through natural means?

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

I know what the scientific basis for the theories are the problem is YOU don't and if I was presenting theories to a group of my peers yes I could lay them out but your not a group of my peers. I don't know a single scientist who disagrees with the age of the earth. Yet you seem to think this is something that is debatable. I am trying to avoid you doing what you always do, where someone lays out a theory and you complain about one of the underlying principles instead of the actual theory.

I know what the scientific basis for the theories are the problem is YOU don't and if I was presenting theories to a group of my peers yes I could lay them out but your not a group of my peers.

I agree that you do not appear to be our peers with respect to science which is why I get a kick out of you trying to talk down to others while refusing to put forward your theory. Perhaps you are afraid to reveal any more about what you do or don't know about science.


I don't know a single scientist who disagrees with the age of the earth.

Thus why it might be good for you to research the topic further. In any case, it would not matter because you first must establish that something which has not be proven to be able to happen at all can somehow happen if a lot of time is added it.

First prove that and then we will see if it even matters if the earth is young or old.

If you are not willing to lay out your theory, then stop wasting our time.

It does me no good to tell you that the pre-biotic environment contained fatty acids. That under a wide range of PH form stable vesicles and that vesicles are permeable to organic monomers but not polymers. So once a polymer forms in a vesicle it is trapped. Even if the vesicle gets divided the polymers are still trapped. Now if this vesicle got caught up in a convection cycle. Near the heat source the polymer stands will separate and the vesicle will increase it's ability to absorb monomers. As it cools the polymer stands will absorb the monomers and the cycle continues. To go from polymers in a vesicle to a life form is a matter of selection. Any vesicle that contains a polymers will absorb vesicles that don't contain as many polymers. So it becomes an advantage to have more polymers and because of this advantage vesicles with more polymers have an advantage over vesicles with less. That means complexity builds over time.

The reason we haven't been able to form life this way is a matter of numbers we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth or millions of years to show increased complexity.

It does me no good to tell you that the pre-biotic environment contained fatty acids. That under a wide range of PH form stable vesicles and that vesicles are permeable to organic monomers but not polymers. So once a polymer forms in a vesicle it is trapped. Even if the vesicle gets divided the polymers are still trapped. Now if this vesicle got caught up in a convection cycle. Near the heat source the polymer stands will separate and the vesicle will increase it's ability to absorb monomers. As it cools the polymer stands will absorb the monomers and the cycle continues. To go from polymers in a vesicle to a life form is a matter of selection. Any vesicle that contains a polymers will absorb vesicles that don't contain as many polymers. So it becomes an advantage to have more polymers and because of this advantage vesicles with more polymers have an advantage over vesicles with less. That means complexity builds over time.

The reason we haven't been able to form life this way is a matter of numbers we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth or millions of years to show increased complexity.

Nice try, but you completely ignore at least four issues:

1) You cannot even tell me what life is. It does not exist just because the chemicals are there, so it is not a chemical reaction. So if you cannot tell me what life is, you cannot tell me how to make it happen in one, ten, 100, or even 10 billion years. That is the magic wand theory, but it is not science. You have that simple math problem that zero times anything is still zero, and you cannot tell me how something came to be if you don't know what it is or how it comes about in the first place.

2) Even if I put aside the major problem that you have in #1, complexity may build over time, but in this case, for a simple single cell, you need to build several perfectly compatible complex systems simultaneously. And time is likely to be an issue, because none of the system does anything useful on their own.

3) You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time. I don't buy the magic wand theory.

4) You tell me what the pre-biotic environment contained without any validation of that claim. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how you prove that.

I don't buy the magic wand theory.But yet that's your answer.

Nice try, but you completely ignore at least four issues:

1) You cannot even tell me what life is. It does not exist just because the chemicals are there, so it is not a chemical reaction. So if you cannot tell me what life is, you cannot tell me how to make it happen in one, ten, 100, or even 10 billion years. That is the magic wand theory, but it is not science. You have that simple math problem that zero times anything is still zero, and you cannot tell me how something came to be if you don't know what it is or how it comes about in the first place.

So if I take away your chemical input will you continue to live? No, you have to take in chemicals to continue to live. So life does exist because the chemicals are there. Life is a very complex chemical reaction it's that simple. You can deny it all you want but everything life does can be explained through different chemical reactions. No magic needed just science. Show me one thing life does that isn't a chemical reaction and I'll concede this one otherwise your just plain wrong.



2) Even if I put aside the major problem that you have in #1, complexity may build over time, but in this case, for a simple single cell, you need to build several perfectly compatible complex systems simultaneously. And time is likely to be an issue, because none of the system does anything useful on their own.

Your assuming that all of these complex systems don't break down into less complex systems that break down into even simpler systems and in this case you would be assuming wrong. Please so one complex system that it's is impossible for it to be broken down into a simpler system or developed for some other purpose that could be broken down.



3) You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time. I don't buy the magic wand theory.

No I don't evolution is a proven fact. Even if we don't have A to Z. If we find 90% of the puzzle we can figure out what the picture is without the rest.



4) You tell me what the pre-biotic environment contained without any validation of that claim. Indeed, it would be interesting to see how you prove that.

You didn't ask for that. In fact when I tried to establish that you complained I wasn't answering the questions. So now we are past that point. Regardless life formed so what ever life needed to get going was obviously there so if you want me to back to the beginning of the universe I will but you specifically asked how the first cell could form and I told you.

But yet that's your answer.

Show me the quote.

So if I take away your chemical input will you continue to live? No, you have to take in chemicals to continue to live. So life does exist because the chemicals are there.

I will continue to live, though not in the flesh. But if you are speaking solely of the flesh, indeed without the flesh, the flesh cannot live. Just like without a car, you have nothing to put gas into. But the key is not whether the chemicals are able to exist, but what makes them alive.


Life is a very complex chemical reaction it's that simple.

Really? I look forward to your proof of that claim.


Your assuming that all of these complex systems don't break down into less complex systems that break down into even simpler systems and in this case you would be assuming wrong.

Then why don't you just show us how the first single cell could come about naturally. Making unsubstantiated claims is not proof.


No I don't evolution is a proven fact.

Let's be clear what we are discussing. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but macro-evolution has not. I know of very few secular scientists who would make such a claim, even if they believe in evolution. So you tell me that the very issue that we are asking to you validate, you refuse to validate because you think that it is a fact. That is a logic fallacy known as circular reasoning.


Even if we don't have A to Z. If we find 90% of the puzzle we can figure out what the picture is without the rest.

So far you are essentially asking me to take it upon faith in your word.


You didn't ask for that. In fact when I tried to establish that you complained I wasn't answering the questions.

I did not ask you for it until you brought it up. Once you bring it up, then it becomes a critical factor in your claim.

I see that you are trying to avoid all the tough questions.

It does me no good to tell you that the pre-biotic environment contained fatty acids. That under a wide range of PH form stable vesicles and that vesicles are permeable to organic monomers but not polymers. So once a polymer forms in a vesicle it is trapped. Even if the vesicle gets divided the polymers are still trapped. Now if this vesicle got caught up in a convection cycle. Near the heat source the polymer stands will separate and the vesicle will increase it's ability to absorb monomers. As it cools the polymer stands will absorb the monomers and the cycle continues. To go from polymers in a vesicle to a life form is a matter of selection. Any vesicle that contains a polymers will absorb vesicles that don't contain as many polymers. So it becomes an advantage to have more polymers and because of this advantage vesicles with more polymers have an advantage over vesicles with less. That means complexity builds over time.

The reason we haven't been able to form life this way is a matter of numbers we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth or millions of years to show increased complexity.

Where is the link for what you state?

How do you get from fatty acids to nucleic acids [ genetic material ] and proteins [ what the genetic material is translated into ] ?

How did the first functioning genetic code happen? To be in a cell ? And that cell have the means [ amino acids, ribosomes ] to put that genetic code to use? Where did all the enzymes and proteins necessary for this genetic code to be used, come from and happen to be in the right cell at the right time?

I will continue to live, though not in the flesh. But if you are speaking solely of the flesh, indeed without the flesh, the flesh cannot live. Just like without a car, you have nothing to put gas into. But the key is not whether the chemicals are able to exist, but what makes them alive.
I would like proof of your continued existence after your body dies.



Really? I look forward to your proof of that claim.

My proof is the fact that you can't name one process that life does that can't be broken down to a chemical reaction. This is on you to disprove I'm not going to name every chemical reaction that takes place. When you would only need to write down one that isn't in order to prove me wrong.



Then why don't you just show us how the first single cell could come about naturally. Making unsubstantiated claims is not proof.

This is a hypothesis, I've said from the very beginning we don't have a complete theory yet. If we had proof we would have a theory as we do with evolution. You didn't ask for proof though you asked for a possible natural process of how a cell developed and I've given you one. The might be millions.



Let's be clear what we are discussing. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but macro-evolution has not. I know of very few secular scientists who would make such a claim, even if they believe in evolution. So you tell me that the very issue that we are asking to you validate, you refuse to validate because you think that it is a fact. That is a logic fallacy known as circular reasoning.

Your right macro-evolution doesn't exist. It's a term made up by fundies to mislead people that don't know anything about evolution. All evolution occurs through very minor changes that we have seen and observed. Macro Mico evolution assumes some barrier between species. Evolution doesn't claim this barrier that fundies have falsely put out there.


I did not ask you for it until you brought it up. Once you bring it up, then it becomes a critical factor in your claim.

I see that you are trying to avoid all the tough questions.

I knew it was critical to my claim which was why I tried to establish it first. I am becoming more and more convinced of your troll status. When I answer the question you ask you divert the topic to something else. When I try to answer the diverted topic you complain I'm not answering the original question make up your mind.

Show me the quote.Do you believe in creation?

[QUOTE=Tj3;1351286]God has existed from eternity.

If not knowing where God came from keeps you from believing in God, then tell me, how did electrons comes into being? Do you know? Do you believe that they exist? Or do you deny the existence of electrons because you don't know how they came to be?

Actually we do know where electrons etc came from, they were formed after the big bang, we know that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. However, not knowing an answer to a question doesn't automatically mean there must be a god.
I find it very difficult to understand why people still want to worship some middle bronze aged deity. At that time people didn't know what caused things to occur, e.g. lightening, thunder. They invented the idea of god(s) which could explain these naturally occurring events. No I didn't get the contradictions form any other source than the book itself. If you honestly think that it isn't full of contradictions and rubbish then you are either deluding yourself or are unable to read properly. This may sound (if that's the right term to use when you are typing) rude but I'm no diplomat, and when I see pure ignorance I speak out.

I would like proof of your continued existence after your body dies.

I don't have to. That part is by faith. I am quite willing to stick to what we can assess scientifically in this discussion (as I said previously), so let's continue to look at the flesh, and let's see you substantiate your claims with regards to life in the flesh.


My proof is the fact that you can't name one process that life does that can't be broken down to a chemical reaction.

I don't have to. The fact is that the chemicals alone are proven not to bring life. As someone else said, when a person dies, the chemicals are still there but life isn't - what changed? Why when the chemicals are created and put together, why is there no life resulting from the chemical reactions? Scientists around the world have been struggling with this question.

So I don't need to prove anything in this regard. You made the claim - the onus is on you to show us what life is and how it came to be.


This is a hypothesis, I've said from the very beginning we don't have a complete theory yet.

You have not even provided a feasible hypothesis yet. You are talking a lot, but you seem to not want to discuss the details of your hypothesis.


If we had proof we would have a theory as we do with evolution. You didn't ask for proof though you asked for a possible natural process of how a cell developed and I've given you one.

Where? I keep asking and you have talked about so many things and even said that until we went through the "20 questions" process you wouldn't talk about it.


Your right macro-evolution doesn't exist. It's a term made up by fundies to mislead people that don't know anything about evolution.

Those people who don't know anything about evolution, in your opinion, must therefore include:

- Berkley University: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

- Evolution and Nature of Science Institute at the Indiana University: Lesson: evolution mini-lesson: Macroevolution (http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/macroev.html)

- British Natural History Museum: Macroevolution (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html)

And I could go on and on. Again, if you spent half the time doing your research and addressing the issues rather than trying to avoid them or making derogatory comments about those who don't agree with you, you'd come across much better and would, I am sure, be putting forward a much more credible argument.


I knew it was critical to my claim which was why I tried to establish it first.

You have not yet established it at all. When you first raised the topic, I asked for it and you refused - now you are avoiding it by saying you gave it already. Post #?


I am becoming more and more convinced of your troll status. When I answer the question you ask you divert the topic to something else. When I try to answer the diverted topic you complain I'm not answering the original question make up your mind.

Look who's talking. I have been trying right from the start to focus you on the OP, and you have posted very few messages that even relate to it. So once again, stop attacking those who disagree with you, and put forward your hypothesis.

Actually we do know where electrons etc came from, they were formed after the big bang, we know that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.

Nice try - but the big bang theory (which has not been proven either) says that all matter (that includes electrons) came together in a large highly compressed black hole that exploded. The electrons were already there, according to the theory.

So, once again, where did electrons come from? If you cannot answer that, do you still believe in the existence of electrons?


However, not knowing an answer to a question doesn't automatically mean there must be a god.

Partly true - it depends upon what the question is.

So, once again, where did electrons come from?They have been there for eternity.

[QUOTE=Tj3;1351944]Nice try - but the big bang theory (which has not been proven either) says that all matter (that includes electrons) came together in a large highly compressed black hole that exploded. The electrons were already there, according to the theory.




This does show that you know nothing of the origin of the universe. The big bang was not an explosion as in a bomb going off. It also wasn't a black hole or the like. The name big bang was coind by hubble to give an answer to his question as to why all the galaxies are moving away from each other and the further apart they are the faster they are moving.
You obviously believe in this god rubbish and I doubt any evidence will stop that, oh well it's your life to waste. However, tell me, how do you know you are right and all the other religions are wrong? What makes your god correct and say shebah incorrect? You cannot use a book that was written hundreds of years after the supposed events as proof because that was written by men.

They have been there for eternity.

Really? And your evidence for this is?

Nice try - but the big bang theory (which has not been proven either) says that all matter (that includes electrons) came together in a large highly compressed black hole that exploded. the electrons were already there, according to the theory.

This does show that you know nothing of the origin of the universe. The big bang was not an explosion as in a bomb going off. It also wasn't a black hole or the like.

I should start a science class on here. First michaelb thinks that macroevolution is a word created by "fundies" and now you think that the big bang created matter and both of you seem to think that anyone who posts information from science on here does not know anything. Let's see what scientists think:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
(Source: THE BIG BANG (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm) )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said to Michael, before you start making derogatory remarks about others, you'd be well advised to take the time to get your facts straight.

Nice try to dodge my question, how do you know you are right and all the others are wrong?

Nice try to dodge my question, how do you know you are right and all the others are wrong?

No dodge. You made a claim contrary to what current scientific thought is and I provided a validated rebuttal.

What others are you speaking about? You are the only one making that claim. And so far you have not done so much as validate it, though I did validate my position.

And, I might add, I did it without posting abuse about those who disagree (hint, hint).

BTW, talking about dodging questions, I see that you have nicely dodged dealing the topic of the thread (see the OP).

Where is the link for what you state?

How do you get from fatty acids to nucleic acids [ genetic material ] and proteins [ what the genetic material is translated into ] ?

How did the first functioning genetic code happen? to be in a cell ? and that cell have the means [ amino acids, ribosomes ] to put that genetic code to use? Where did all the enzymes and proteins necessary for this genetic code to be used, come from and happen to be in the right cell at the right time?

Add to that is whether this is RNA or DNA

Just because they define the word doesn't mean it's a good term or they came up with it.

Macro-evolution was first used by Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko in 1927 who by the way was an ID fan.
It also depends on how you want to use this word as to whether it exist or not. If you use the Berkly definition it exists. If you use fundy definitions it's used to confuse.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which step in the process I laid out is impossible an why? So far I've disputed all of your claims. I'm still waiting for you to point out one process that life does that isn't a chemical reaction just one that's all it will take to prove life isn't a series of chemical reactions.

Just because they define the word doesn't mean it's a good term or they came up with it.

Nice attempt at backtracking, but let's re-read what it was that you said:

"Your right macro-evolution doesn't exist. It's a term made up by fundies to mislead people that don't know anything about evolution."

Heh heh heh. Miachael, you should give up at this and just stick with validated facts. I did not post this again to embarrass you, but rather in the hopes that perhaps you will lay off trying to put down others, and spend your time more productively by doing some research and getting your facts straight; and perhaps even being willing to actually answer the questions.

Bottom line - whether you like it or not, the tern is in common use amongst all scientists, both those who adhere to the beliefs of evolution and those who adhere to the intelligent design theory.


I'm still waiting for you to tell me which step in the process I laid out is impossible an why? So far I've disputed all of your claims.

No, in fact I have seen very few responses (at least not on the topic) to my rebuttals. As for which "step", I will address that when you provide your hypothesis. Since you have yet to do so, I will not attempt mind-reading.

Fine you got me on this one. I was using the fundy definition of macro-evolution while you were using the scientific one. My mistake. I still don't like the word because I don't like talking species when I talk about evolution because it confuses people into thinking there is some special barrier that makes something one species versus another one. When we are all the same just diversified.

However using the scientific definition macro-evolution is still simply evolution with enough change to call something a new species. There is no special species barrier that prevents micro-evolution from changing a species into what we would call a new species. Even the old argument that mutation could not add genetic material has been proven false in lab experiments.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)
So your argument about evolution falls apart. Since the experiment proves complex new traits can arise though evolution.

My proof is the fact that you can't name one process that life does that can't be broken down to a chemical reaction.



Love

Morality - the idea of good an bad / evil

Alturism

Charity

Jealousy

Most of psychology

Intelligence

To name a few




... Where are the exact genes for this? We are more than the sum of our chemicals - thus the whole nature vs nurture argument.

Fine you got me on this one. I was using the fundy definition of macro-evolution while you were using the scientific one.

I love it - you always have an excuse, and a way to attack those who don't agree with you, without addressing the issue.


My mistake. I still don't like the word because I don't like talking species when I talk about evolution because it confuses people into thinking there is some special barrier that makes something one species versus another one. When we are all the same just diversified.

Except there has never been a single case shown where a species evolved into a different species. The only thing proven is microevolution.


However using the scientific definition macro-evolution is still simply evolution with enough change to call something a new species. There is no special species barrier that prevents micro-evolution from changing a species into what we would call a new species. Even the old argument that mutation could not add genetic material has been proven false in lab experiments.

Ho hum. I don't share your excitement nor have you done anything to my argument. It is still E Coli. I never argued against microevolution.

BTW, I notice that you still avoid the questions at hand and you still keep trying to distract from the topic. I understand why.

Still waiting for anyone to come forward with a feasible natural way for the first cell to develop.

Still waiting for anyone to come up with a feasible way in which this animal could develop naturally:

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

Really? And your evidence for this is?Answer me this - who made God?

[QUOTE=Tj3;1352311]Still waiting for anyone to come up with a feasible way in which this animal could develop naturally:

I really think you should read and watch Prof Richard Dawkins books and videos, There you will find all the explanations you need. I know you will dismiss it out of hand as you have a closed mind. No I am not being insulting, just factual!
Tell me, how old do YOU believe the earth is?
Also do you believe we should follow what the bible says?

Answer me this - who made God?

No one. But I notice that once again, you avoid the question asked of you.

Still waiting for anyone to come up with a feasible way in which this animal could develop naturally:

I really think you should read and watch Prof Richard Dawkins books and videos, There you will find all the explanations you need. I know you will dismiss it out of hand as you have a closed mind. No I am not being insulting, just factual!
Tell me, how old do YOU believe the earth is?
Also do you believe we should follow what the bible says?

I know all about Dawkins. Now I am asking you.

BTW, in case you have not noticed, I said that I am willing to submit the questions in the OP to strictly those things that can be addressed by science. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine, but with science. Now once you have taken the time to deal with the OP, perhaps we can deal with other issues, or perhapsd you would like to start another thread for your questions.

And yes, you are being insulting - anytime that a person feels the need to attack the person rather than deal with the issue, it indicates that they have no answers. BTW, you probably did not read enough of the thread to know that I am a former evolutionist who found that the evidence did not support the theory. So much for your abusive comments about me.

And I notice a epidemic of avoiding the questions on here amongst atheists :D

I understand why.

I am beginning to notice a trend on here. No atheists want to deal with the questions in the OP. Instead they resort to:

- Changing the question to distract from the OP or hijack the thread.
- Abusive comments about those who disagree with them.

Are there ANY atheists on here who have the guts to deal with the questions raised in the OP, and to see what science has to say?

No one. So no one made atoms either. See how that works?

So no one made atoms either. See how that works?

No I don't - God made all things.

Col 1:15-17
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
NKJV

Matter is not God. What you are advocating is Mormonism. Further, I accept that my believe in the eternal nature of God is by faith and there are valid reasons for that faith, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Now if you are telling me that you accept the eternal pre-existence of matter as a tenet of your faith, then that is fine. You are welcome to believe it, but it falls outside of the realm of science.

So you belief in life created naturally then becomes a matter of faith, your religion.

See how that works?

Now how about returning to the topic of the thread. As I said earlier:

I am beginning to notice a trend on here. No atheists want to deal with the questions in the OP. Instead they resort to:

- Changing the question to distract from the OP or hijack the thread.
- Abusive comments about those who disagree with them.

Are there ANY atheists on here who have the guts to deal with the questions raised in the OP, and to see what science has to say?

I am beginning to think that the answer is "NO". Prove me wrong. Maybe atheists are concerned as to what science may reveal;)

Still waiting for anyone to come forward with a feasible natural way for the first cell to develop.

I gave you a feasible way. So I have answered your question in the format you asked it. What you want is 100% proof of how the first cell formed. Which I don't have nobody has it. As I have said several times. However all that proves is lack of knowledge. It doesn't prove god did it. It only proves that we don't know for sure.

I gave you a feasible way. So I have answered your question in the format you asked it.

You responded back near the start of this thread and I responded in post #31. I do not remember seeing any further response from you on a feasible way in which any of these occurred. If you believe that you have, please tell us the post #.



What you want is 100% proof of how the first cell formed.

No, I am not looking for 100% proof. But don't think that you can put something out which has gaping holes in it that make it unfeasible and then expect not to be challenged. So post what you believe to be feasible and let's have a look at it.

Your biggest argument against the feasibility of the idea I presented was against evolution and as I stated evolution is a fact. Just because you choose to ignore facts is meaning less. All evidence that has ever been uncovered supports evolution and the experiment I pointed out shows that new information can be added to the genetic code through evolution. Which disproves all questions about evolution and all most all scientists agree. Now if you can point out something to the contrary I'll listen but I'm sure you can't because the greatest minds for the last 150 years have been trying to disprove evolution and haven't found any evidence to the contrary so forgive me if I say it's highly unlikely that you have any.

Your biggest argument against the feasibility of the idea I presented was against evolution

No, not at all. There were numerous issues raised. I did not use evolution as an argument anywhere in my rebuttal.


And as I stated evolution is a fact.

Which is true for micro-evolution, but not true for macro-evolution. You cannot simply declare something as a fact and then tell everyone that they must accept it. That is not how either logic or science works.


Just because you choose to ignore facts is meaning less.

I ignore unvalidated claims.


All evidence that has ever been uncovered supports evolution

Even most evolutionists would not make that claim. Darwin himself did not agree. And yet you demand that we accept it simply because you believe it to be true.


and the experiment I pointed out shows that new information can be added to the genetic code through evolution. Which disproves all questions about evolution and all most all scientists agree.

Though interesting, it does not change anything with respect to macro-evolution. I don't know why you think that it does. Even the article made no such claim.


Now if you can point out something to the contrary I'll listen but I'm sure you can't because the greatest minds for the last 150 years have been trying to disprove evolution and haven't found any evidence to the contrary so forgive me if I say it's highly unlikely that you have any.

Please, let's stay in the real world, shall we?

Now look, if you are not prepared to deal with the issues that are raised and are simply going to demand that we believe you because you say so (which BTW is another defined logic fallacy), then we are not going to get anywhere. I committed myself to stay within the bounds of what can be shown by science to be feasible - why won't you?

No, not at all. There were numerous issues raised. I did not use evolution as an argument anywhere in my rebuttal.

"You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time."
This statement no matter how you spin it is trying to dispute evolution.



Which is true for micro-evolution, but not true for macro-evolution. You cannot simply declare something as a fact and then tell everyone that they must accept it. That is not how either logic or science works.

Yes millions of scientist around the globe simply claim evolution as fact with no logic or evidence to back it up it's a world wide conspiracy to cover up the fact that god created everything as it is and I'm the president of that conspiracy you found us out...
Give me a break. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. So much so that it would it is ridiculous to even debate the fact anymore.


I ignore unvalidated claims.
You ignore facts that don't follow your particular brand of religion.


Even most evolutionists would not make that claim. Darwin himself did not agree. And yet you demand that we accept it simply because you believe it to be true.
Really find me one. Find me one piece of solid evidence that goes against evolution theory and one evolutionist who feels that evolution doesn't follow all the known facts.

I'm actually surprised you would even try and say this considering what a scientific theory is. If any evidence was contrary to evolution theory it would go back to being a hypothesis or the theory would be changed to incorporate this new information.



Though interesting, it does not change anything with respect to macro-evolution. I don't know why you think that it does. Even the article made no such claim.

Read the papers that go along with the actual experiment. In the experiment Ecoli evolved the ability to process citrate. Which one of the defining quality of Ecoli is its inability to process citrate. This ability was not in the genetic code of the Ecoli before hand.






Please, let's stay in the real world, shall we?

Now look, if you are not prepared to deal with the issues that are raised and are simply going to demand that we believe you because you say so (which BTW is another defined logic fallacy), then we are not going to get anywhere. I committed myself to stay within the bounds of what can be shown by science to be feasible - why won't you?

I'm not asking you to realize these facts because I say so but because they have been proven over the last 150 years. Every new discover has only enforced that evolution is fact.

Let me repeat this just to be clear.

There has never been any evidence found contrary to modern evolution theory.

"You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time."
This statement no matter how you spin it is trying to dispute evolution.

I am not disputing evolution. I am looking at the details of the approach that you are proposing. If you have an alternate to evolution, then put forward the proposal. If you wish to proposal evolution, I am more than willing to look at the details rather than rejecting it because it is evolution.

Now, please, stop complaining about what you think might happen, and just post the proposal - assuming of course that you ever actually intend to do so. You are wasting your time and mine with ths stream of strawman arguments.


Yes millions of scientist around the globe simply claim evolution as fact with no logic or evidence to back it up it's a world wide conspiracy to cover up the fact that god created everything as it is and I'm the president of that conspiracy you found us out...

I do not dispute the reality of evolution. It is macroevolution which is currently in dispute.


You ignore facts that don't follow your particular brand of religion.

You brought religion into it. I said that I was willing to look at this from a purely scientific basis.


Really find me one. Find me one piece of solid evidence that goes against evolution theory and one evolutionist who feels that evolution doesn't follow all the known facts.

Start a thread on macroevolution if you wish - that is not the topic of this thread.


I'm actually surprised you would even try and say this considering what a scientific theory is.

Then you should study up on the topic a bit more.


Read the papers that go along with the actual experiment. In the experiment Ecoli evolved the ability to process citrate. Which one of the defining quality of Ecoli is its inability to process citrate. This ability was not in the genetic code of the Ecoli before hand.

You clearly did not read what I said.


I'm not asking you to realize these facts because I say so but because they have been proven over the last 150 years. Every new discover has only enforced that evolution is fact.

Ho hum - this is your claim. Still waiting for you to put forward your proposal.
Or maybe you are trying to delay and distract so long that you hope that I will forget what the topic of this thread is.

You spend so much time trying to argue about side issues that I am fully convinced that you never intend to post your proposal. These games seem to be a matter of avoidance and delay.

What are you disputing then? That we don't a 100% proof of how the first cell came to be. So what? Even if we don't have have a hypothesis that is feasible in your eyes. So what? All it proves is we don't know everything yet and I don't think anyone is trying to claim we know everything there is to know. We have lots of theories and hypothesis and you want to know something interesting even if every theory man has and every hypothesis that we have is proven false it still isn't evidence of god.

What are you disputing then?

I am examine your proposals. I am still waiting for your proposal for the first cell, so I cannot tell you what I will dispute, if anything, until I see it. As for evolution, I have made my position clear. I sticvk with what science has proven (microevolution) and do not dispute that fact. I have already told you this many times. Why don't you read what I have posted? Is this a delay tactic to avoid providing an answer?


That we don't a 100% proof of how the first cell came to be.

Strawman. You have been told many times that no one is looking for a 100%. Just a feasible proposal. And so far you have done everything to avoid providing one.

The longer that you avoid the question, the more that it appears that you have no answers.

Look, if you are struggling with putting together a proposal for the first cell, there are other questions in the OP, or another that I added not too long ago about the diving bell spider. Feel free to try to address one of the other questions, or go back to some of the rebuttals that you received in post #31.

Tj3 to michealb :

I am examine your proposals. I am still waiting for your proposal for the first cell, so I cannot tell you what I will dispute, if anything, until I see it. I have already told you this many times. Why don't you read what I have posted? Is this a delay tactic to avoid providing an answer?
Tj3 own tactic is to boor everyone on this board to death with his own unsupported wild claim of some invisible deity called "God" to exist.
Instead of being honest and admit that Tommy - Tj3 and others BELIEVE that "God" exists, Tommy hides behind a list of claims about evolution and demands proof for the evolution views to these claims, and failing to supply him with a "perfect" and solid reply he - in advance - already declares that any failing reply confirms and supports his own totally unsupported views on the existence of said deity.

We all know it does not work that way.
Whatever questions on Evolution Tommy has, he should post on the evolution board.
And ask for answers there. I already suggested that several times in this thread.

The existence of this deity called "God" can only be proved by direct OSE on "God's" existence. Tommy knows, we all know. Still Tommy uses this strawman argument to force the gullible towards his religious views.

It seems that Tommy feels that to BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God" is not enough. It has to have some format of proof.
Is that the faith of a real Christian??

===

Can we please stop with pursuing Tj3's questions on evolution here?
The only topic issue is if Tj3's claim is valid or not.

===

This topic is NOT about evolution. This topic is NOT about lack of replies proving anything. This topic is only about Tommies approach and lack of support for his own belief and for what he states in his own post (even if that post was originally posted on another Q&A board).

THERE SIMPLY IS NO - AND NEVER WILL BE - ANY EVIDENCE (OSE) FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

ALL ONE CAN DO IS BELIEVE AND HAVE FAITH IN THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

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

Tj3 to michealb :

Tj3 own tactic is to boor everyone on this board to death with his own unsupported wild claim of some invisible deity called "God" to exist.

Cred,

I see that rather than posting a well thought out answer, you have chosen once again to post abuse.

As I said in the OP:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see that you want to distract from the questions at hand. I understand why - things are not looking good for your position. I am sure that you will continue to post abuse as your best alternative to a real answer.

Your admission is noted.

Still waiting for any feasible approach for this animal:

DIVING BELL SPIDER

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cred,I see that rather than posting a well thought out answer, you have chosen once again to post abuse.
Tommy : the only abuse here is your continued addressing of these evolution queries, against my clear and frequent request in this topic, while you perfectly know that your evolution queries are not the topic here.

The real issue here is if your evolution questions and possible replies to these have any validity towards the existence of "God".

The real issue is also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".
The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

I blame you for deliberately side-stepping that point again and again and again , as it shows a dark shadow on your own integrity as a real Christian.

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

.

.

Still waiting for a feasible answer to these questions:

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 : Cred 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.

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 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all participating here :

Once more I have to request to stop any "debate" on Tj3's queries on evolution, and instead of that address the only topic issue here :

That issue is if Tj3's questions on evolution and the possible replies to these have - or can provide - any validity towards OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The real issue is also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".
The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

I blame Tj3 once more for his deliberate and repeated side-stepping of that point - again and again and again - and it shows a dark shadow on his integrity as a real Christian.

===

Add-on : I wonder if that is the way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" and the "Last Days Bible Conference" approach the issue of the existence of "God"...

If so one should not be discerned, but strongly concerned about the morality of the ideas of such organisations...


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

.

.

For all participating here :
Once more I have to request to stop any "debate" on Tj3's queries on evolution, and instead of that address the only topic issue here :

Cred,

I find it funny how you started the discussion and once it is clear that no atheists / evolutionists have any answers to the question, you come on here on bended knee pleading for people to stop dealing with the topic.

In his OP, Cred says:

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

Reading the thread makes it clear that the lack of answers from evolutionists/atheists is why Cred wants the discussion to end.

:D:D:D:D:D

Trust me, I do understand why you are frustrated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response 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. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end :D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cred, I find it funny how you started the discussion and once it is clear that no one has any answers to the question, you come on here on bended knee pleading for people to stop dealing with the topic.
Tommy : the topic was clear about the issues at stake, from the first post onwards.
You knew that very well , as we had this discussion several times before.
And every time I reacted to your post I informed you that your list of queries is interesting, but that the faillure to have any of your queries replied to 100% in accordance to your demands can never be considered as valid "proof" of the existence of "God" .

Only direct OSE proof can be considered as valid evidence for the existence of "God". Nothing else.

I told you also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

I blame you, Tommy, once more for your deliberate and repeated side-stepping of that point - again and again and again - and it shows a dark shadow on your integrity as a real Christian.

That you act each time the injured and innocent party when your failing arguments are turned down as invalid, and continue than with your "insults, ad hominems, and ridicule" lamenting makes me wondering if that is the actual way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" and the "Last Days Bible Conference" approach the issue of the existence of " approach the issue of the existence of "...

If so one should not be discerned, but strongly concerned about the morality of the ideas of such organisations...

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

.

.

Cred,

I know that you blame me, but what you blame me for is exposing the lack of any atheist / evolutionist answer to the question.

I know that you don't like things like this backfiring on you. I don't know why you thought that the result would be different from that which happened on the other board, but now you are batting zero out of 2.

Keep telling yourself that there is no OSE for God. Maybe eventually you'll be able to forget what happened, and convince yourself. :D

Hey, why don't you try to answer the questions! You were not able to when we discussed this a year or so ago, but you have had plenty of time to consider the topic since then.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response 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. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Cred, I know that you blame me, but what you blame me for is exposing the lack of any atheist / evolutionist answer to the question.
NO Tommy : I do not hate you at all. I dislike your haughtiness, your intolerance, and your hypocrisy !

And again NO Tommy : Atheist' and/or evolutionist' answers have nothing to do with your (invalid) argument.
So there is no "exposing" at all !

As stated before : Only direct OSE proof can be considered as valid evidence for the existence of "God". Nothing else.

There is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

I blame you, Tommy, once more for your deliberate and repeated side-stepping of that point - again and again and again - and it shows a dark shadow on your integrity as a real Christian.

That you act each time the injured and innocent party when your failing arguments are turned down as invalid, and continue than with your "insults, ad hominems, and ridicule" lamenting makes me wondering if that is the actual way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" and the "Last Days Bible Conference" approach the issue of the existence of " approach the issue of the existence of "...

If so one should not be discerned, but strongly concerned about the morality of the ideas of such organisations...

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

.

.

The real issue is also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".

As I’ve stated before, you’re correct, there is no tangible proof of God’s existence; nobody can put God in your hands. It takes measurably less “faith” to believe in God than it does the unproven theories of evolution.

JoeT

As I've stated before, you're correct, there is no tangible proof of God's existence; nobody can put God in your hands. It takes measurably less “faith” to believe in God than it does the unproven theories of evolution.JoeT
Hello Joe : you know that I respect the BELIEF in the existence of "God".
Why however people who BELIEVE in the existence of "God" keep insisting that they can "prove" that is beyond me, as till today they have always failed to just do that.

Tj3's queries on evolution are interesting and I look forward to see any replies to these on the Evolution board, but whatever is replied or not replied does not have any influence on the fact that one can only have BELIEF and FAITH in the existence of "God" and that OSE proof will never be available.

:)

.

.

Cred,

I know that you blame me, but what you blame me for is exposing the lack of any atheist / evolutionist answer to the question.

I know that you don't like things like this backfiring on you. I don't know why you thought that the result would be different from that which happened on the other board, but now you are batting zero out of 2. It must be rough when your BELIEF and FAITH in evolution is shown to have no basis in fact.

Keep telling yourself that there is no OSE for God. Maybe eventually you'll be able to forget what happened, and convince yourself. :D

Hey, why don't you try to answer the questions! You were not able to when we discussed this a year or so ago, but you have had plenty of time to consider the topic since then.
Of course maybe you ready know that there is no natural explanation. If so, then I'll bet that all we can expect from you is more abusive responses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response 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. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Still waiting for a feasible answer to these questions:

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 : Cred 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.

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?

DIVING BELL SPIDER

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all participating here :

I'm sorry to note Tj3's deliberate abuse of this topic.

Specially in view of Tj3's eagerness to lament on others posting "insults, ad hominems, and ridicule"...
Rather hypocrite I would say , as that is precisely what Tommy is doing himself here and in other topics...

Once more I have to request to stop any reaction on Tj3's queries on evolution, and instead of that address the only topic issue here.

That issue is if Tj3's questions on evolution and the possible replies to these have - or can provide - any validity towards OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The real issue is also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".
The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

I blame Tj3 once more for his deliberate and repeated side-stepping of that point - again and again and again - and it shows a dark shadow on his integrity as a real Christian.

===

Add-on : I wonder if that is the way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" , the "Last Days Bible Conference" , and the "Signs of Scripture Conference" approach the issue of the existence of "God"...

If so one should not be discerned, but strongly concerned about the morality of the ideas of such organisations...


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

.

.

Cred,

I find it funny how you started the discussion and once it is clear that no atheists / evolutionists have any answers to the question, you come on here on bended knee pleading for people to stop dealing with the topic.

In his OP, Cred says:

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

Now he tries to change the topic. Reading the thread makes it clear that the lack of answers from evolutionists/atheists is why Cred wants the discussion to end.

I know that you don't like things like this backfiring on you. I don't know why you thought that the result would be different from that which happened on the other board, but now you are batting zero out of 2. It must be rough when your BELIEF and FAITH in evolution is shown to have no basis in fact.

Keep telling yourself that there is no OSE for God. Maybe eventually you'll be able to forget what happened, and convince yourself. :D

Hey, why don't you try to answer the questions! You were not able to when we discussed this a year or so ago, but you have had plenty of time to consider the topic since then.
Of course maybe you ready know that there is no natural explanation. If so, then I'll bet that all we can expect from you is more abusive responses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response 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. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Joe : you know that I respect the BELIEF in the existence of "God".
Why however people who BELIEVE in the existence of "God" keep insisting that they can "prove" that is beyond me, as till today they have always failed to just do that.

Tj3's queries on evolution are interesting and I look forward to see any replies to these on the Evolution board, but whatever is replied or not replied does not have any influence on the fact that one can only have BELIEF and FAITH in the existence of "God" and that OSE proof will never be available.

:)

.

.

Just to change the subject a bit see the following - it shows :

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods as evolutionists contend. The tests were conducted by conference speaker Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field, accompanying Berthault’s tests, showed that major rock formations deposited in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale. (Press release: World-Renowned Scientists to Present Facts Against Evolution at Conference in Rome Participants Answer Pope Benedict’s Call for Truth and Tolerance in Evolution Debate FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OCTOBER 27, 2008)

Also See Conference (SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION) (http://sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/conference2)

What could this do to michealb's 4.4 Billion Years?

The point is that consensus science leads to junk science


JoeT

Just to change the subject a bit see the following - it shows :

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods of time as evolutionists contend.

There were also some excellent scientific studies regarding the stratification that occurred during the Mount St. Helen's eruption that proved that such an event could easily duplicate the stratification in an extremely short timeframe.

http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/sthelens.htm

In his OP, Cred says : "Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions"
Tommy : I also clearly and repeatedly stated that such replies should be replied to on the Evolution board, and not here, as here the issue is not your queries on evolution, but if any answer to your queries can be considered (as you claim) to be "evidence for the existence of "God"".

Tj3 : I have reported you for deliberate abuse here in this topic.

===

For all participating here :

Once more I have to request to stop any reaction on Tj3's queries on evolution, and instead of that address the only topic issue here.

That issue is if Tj3's questions on evolution and the possible replies to these have - or can provide - any validity towards OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The real issue is also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".
The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

I blame Tj3 once more for his deliberate and repeated side-stepping of that point - again and again and again - and it shows a dark shadow on his integrity as a real Christian.

I wonder if that is the way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" , the "Last Days Bible Conference" , and the "Signs of Scripture Conference" approach the issue of the existence of "God"...

If so one should not be discerned, but strongly concerned about the morality of the ideas of such organisations...

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

.

.

Cred,

I see that you cannot even tolerate when scientific papers which disagree with you are posted. Why would someone who claims to believe in science, try so hard to stop and interfere with discussions on the science of creation?

I know that you blame me, but what you blame me for is exposing the lack of any atheist / evolutionist answer to the question.

In his OP, Cred says:

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

Now he tries to change the topic. Reading the thread makes it clear that the lack of answers from evolutionists/atheists is why Cred wants the discussion to end.

I know that you don't like things like this backfiring on you. I don't know why you thought that the result would be different from that which happened on the other board, but now you are batting zero out of 2. It must be rough when your BELIEF and FAITH in evolution is shown to have no basis in fact.

Keep telling yourself that there is no OSE for God. Maybe eventually you'll be able to forget what happened, and convince yourself. :D

Hey, why don't you try to answer the questions! You were not able to when we discussed this a year or so ago, but you have had plenty of time to consider the topic since then. Of course maybe you ready know that there is no natural explanation. If so, then I'll bet that all we can expect from you is more abusive responses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response 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. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Just to change the subject a bit see the following - it shows :
Arguments against evolution are ...
Joe I have to ask you too to stop posting here about the actual evolution queries or evolution in general, as this topic is not about evolution : the OS refers to Tj3's claims that the lack of any proper reply to these queries are "evidence" for the existence of "God".

I question that approach.

The only evidence for the existence of "God" is OSE proof for the existence of "God".
Nothing else will do.

One can only BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".
You confirmed that yourself earlier here.

:)

.

.

I see that you cannot even tolerate when scientific papers which disagree with you are posted.
I have asked you repeatedly to stop pushing these queries. This topic is about your approach that lack of "perfect" responses to your queries are evidence for the "existence of "God"".

Only OSE proof for the existence of "God" can be used as evidence for the existence of "God".

As stated : I have reported your abuse here.

Please note that your attempt to get me abusive here is doomed to fail.

In the meantime you provide a clear example of your own abusive approach towards others.

:(

.

.

Joe I have to ask you too to stop posting here about the actual evolution queries or evolution in general, as this topic is not about evolution : the OS refers to Tj3's claims that the lack of any proper reply to these queries are "evidence" for the existence of "God".

The OP says:


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

I have seen many reactions to the scientific evidence being posted regarding creation, but I have never seen such constant demands that everyone stop discussing the science regarding creation!

I can think of only one reason why there would be such fear of science. It interferes with one's BELIEFs.

Cred, instead of trying to stop people from discusing the scientific evidence (especially when you started the discussion), why not join in a respectful discussion of the science of creation.

Those who love truth have nothing to fear from the truth.

To try to get this back on the topic of science:


Just to change the subject a bit see the following - it shows :

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods of time as evolutionists contend.

There were also some excellent scientific studies regarding the stratification that occurred during the Mount St. Helen's eruption that proved that such an event could easily duplicate the stratification in an extremely short timeframe.

Mount St. Helens And Catastrophism (http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/sthelens.htm)

I have seen many reactions to the scientific evidence being posted regarding creation, but I have never seen such constant demands that everyone stop discussing the science regarding creation!!

Tommy : I have asked you repeatedly to stop pushing these queries. This topic is about your approach that lack of "perfect" responses to your queries are evidence for the "existence of "God"".

Only OSE proof for the existence of "God" can be used as evidence for the existence of "God".

As stated : I have reported your abuse here.

Please note that your attempt to get me abusive here is doomed to fail.

In the meantime you provide a clear example of your own abusive approach towards others.

:(

.

.

Tommy : I have asked you repeatedly to stop pushing these queries. This topic is about your approach that lack of "perfect" responses to your queries are evidence for the "existence of "God"".

Only OSE proof for the existence of "God" can be used as evidence for the existence of "God".

As stated : I have reported your abuse here.

Please note that your attempt to get me abusive here is doomed to fail.

In the meantime you provide a clear example of your own abusive approach towards others.

:(

.

.

Cred,

Fine, you reported it. Now let that process take it's course and let those who wish to discuss the topic continue to do so!

I have no interest in your interruptions because we may disagree with your BELIEFS, nor do I have any interest in your abuse and false accusations.

So, if you reported it, then allow the mods to do their job and in the meantime, let those who wish to discuss the topic, do so!

Those who love truth do not need to fear truth.

Now let that process take it's course and let those who wish to discuss the topic continue to do so!!
This topic is NOT about evolution or your queries on evolution.
I know, as I started THIS TOPIC!

So all I want is to get back on thread : MY THREAD.

The thread about the argument that any evidence for the existence of "God" can only be valid if supported by OSE for the existence of "God".

If you want to continue with your queries on evolution DO THAT ON THE EVOLUTION BOARD, WHERE IT BELONGS !!

:(

.

.

This topic is NOT about evolution or your queries on evolution.

I did not raise any queries on evolution.


I know, as I started THIS TOPIC!

Starting the topic does not give you the right to abuse others who wish to discuss it when things go contrary to your beliefs.

Or to change the topic when people don't agree with what you would like. Here is a quote from the OP;


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

Apparently you are unhappy because they have been unable to do so.

Starting the tiopic does not give you the right to abuse others who wish to discuss it when things go contrary to your beliefs.
I do not abuse anyone, Tommy.
All I want is to get back to the thread of this topic.

The thread about the argument that any evidence for the existence of "God" can only be valid if supported by OSE for the existence of "God".

If you want to continue with your queries on evolution DO THAT ON THE EVOLUTION BOARD, WHERE IT BELONGS!!

:(

.

.

I do not abuse anyone, Tommy.

Your posts say otherwise


All I want is to get back to the thread of this topic.

Good! I hope that this means that you will stop interrupting those who are trying to discuss it.

Now that Cred says that he wants to get back to the topic, let's try to get back on the original topic with the hope that there will be no further interruptions:


Cred says in the OP - ""Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions"". We are still waiting for atheists / evolutionists to provide a feasible answer to these questions as suggested by Cred:

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 : Cred 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.

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?

DIVING BELL SPIDER

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that this means that you will stop interrupting those who are trying to discuss it.
No Tommy : it means that I will keep trying to get back to the topic I posted to this board, and that I will keep reporting you for abuse here, every time you try to return to your evolution queries instead of addressing the topic issue itself.

Now be nice, and start your own topic on evolution queries.

Remember why your were suspended from AW...

:(

.

.

No Tommy : it means that I will keep trying to get back to the topic I posted to this board, and that I will keep reporting you for abuse here, every time you try to return to your evolution queries instead of addressing the topic issue itself.

Oh, so it means that you will keep abusing those who try to discuss the original topic.

Are you saying that want to discuss why you were one of the most frequently suspended persons on the other boards?

Now that Cred says that he wants ...
I want to get back to the topic question. Not to what you BELIEVE to be the topic question...


Oh, so it means that you will keep abusing those who try to discuss the original topic ...

Returning to the REAL original topic thread is now abuse ? Get real, Tommy !

You have been reported for abuse once again...

:(

.

.

I want to get back to the topic question. Not to what you BELIEVE to be the topic question ...

I am trying to get back to the original question in the OP, not the one that you decided that you would prefer it to be after things went contrary to what you hoped.

Since you reported, why can't you just let the discussion carrying on and let the mods do their job. Or does the discussion of the science of creation cause you some anxiety?

Here is another question related to the original question. Can anyone provide a feasible method by which this animal was created by natural means?

MARSUPIAL LION

Thylacoleonidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial_lion)

Here is another question related to the original question.
Tommy : once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

Please do not post here anymore about evolution, but instead return to the oroignal topic .

Your attempt to drive my to abusive reactions is doomed to fail...

:)

.

.

For all :

Please remember that this topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God", and if not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on evolution - how interesting each of them may be - can be considered valid evidence on the existence of "God".

Please do not post here anymore about evolution, but instead return to the real topic question.

I'm off to sleep now. See you tomorrow.

:)

.

.

Tommy : once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

Cred,

I did not bring evolution into it. I will continue to post on the original topic. Once again, please do not interfere with those who do wish to discuss.

Just to change the subject a bit see the following - it shows :

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods of time as evolutionists contend. The tests were conducted by conference speaker Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field, accompanying Berthault’s tests, showed that major rock formations deposited in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale. (Press release: World-Renowned Scientists to Present Facts Against Evolution at Conference in Rome Participants Answer Pope Benedict’s Call for Truth and Tolerance in Evolution Debate FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OCTOBER 27, 2008)

Also See Conference (SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION) (http://sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/conference2)

What could this do to michealb's 4.4 Billion Years?

The point is that consensus science leads to junk science


JoeT

Good post Joe and a good link!

Excellent argumentation TJ! I doubt that any atheists will be able to put a dent in it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,

It appears that you were right!

Explain to me, how these atoms became a cell that can reproduce and carry information.

Good question. It would be nice if we could get an answer to these questions!

Cred, I did not bring evolution into it. I will continue to post on the original topic. Once again, please do not interfere with those who do wish to discuss.
Tommy : the only thing you refer to here is evolution, despite that you know that this is not on-topic. Once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

Please do not post here anymore about evolution, but instead return to the orignal topic , i.e. to if any response to any question can be used as evidence on the existence of "God", or that only OSE support can be used as evidence on the existence of "God".

Every future attempt to discuss queries on evolution here will result in me reporting you for abuse.

.

.

Tommy : the only thing you refer to here is evolution, despite that you know that this is not on-topic. Once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

Cred,

Over and over again, I corrected those including you who say that I am attacking evolution. The truth is that YOU were the one who mentioned evolution in the OP by asking evolutionists to provide answers.

I have consistently ask for a natural explanation. Now if you are saying that the natural alternative is evolution, then you have basically defeated your whole argument.

If you feel that there is a natural way in which these could have happened without evolution, I am listening - post iot now. Join in the discussion rather than trying to stop the discussion because you don't like the outcome.

Tj,
Is your plan to win people over to your side by making them understand that logically a god has to exist for the universe to exist? Do you think that will make a difference to people who currently live their lives without the need of belief in a god or need to worship and congregate?

Got to go give blood to save a life. Cheers!

NK.

I don't see the point of this discussion. Even if I were able to prove the existence of God, ( which I think tj3 has given compelling evidence), the Bible says you have to believe that He IS. God requires us to have Faith, because that pleases him and it is impossible to come to him WITHOUT it. For me, it is a waste of time to try to prove it.

When the Lord Jesus called Lazarus out of the grave, many left unbelieving. If my Lord and Savior couldn't convince everyone, I certainly can't. Why? It takes FAITH. You cannot come to God without it.

In my mind the examples that TJ3 gives could NEVER happen naturally. But I don't think God cares whether we PROVE he exists. AND I will go a step further, even if we can prove it it would change nothing.

I agree with ClassyT.

Tj,
Is your plan to win people over to your side by making them understand that logically a god has to exist for the universe to exist? Do you think that will amke a difference to people who currently live their lives without the need of belief in a god or need to worship and congregate?

Gotta go give blood to save a life. Cheers!

NK.

NK,

You proved my point. It makes no difference whether we can prove it or not.

ClassyT,

Have you ever heard extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It means the larger your claim the better your evidence needs to be. Even if we don't have a single answer to TJ3's question all it means is we don't know the answer right now. It doesn't mean god did it. If anything that history has taught us it is that we don't know everything.

I also beg to differ on the claim that it would change nothing. If there was proof of the Christian god. We would have to examine the rules closer and follow them stricter. You would no longer risk your immortal soul and not stone your children when they misbehave. You should go out and slay all non-believers without mercy as the bible commands you to. Many would stop taking life saving medicine because after all when you die you would have proof of going to heaven so why delay it. These are just a few there are many other things that would change if we had proof.

Michaelb,

LOL... that was a ridiculous post. You do not understand scripture or GOD. He loves me unconditionally because I am in CHRIST, I don't stone my children and I can take medicine.

My point was that it wouldn't make an atheist bow the knee even with proof. It takes faith. That was my point.

All:

Credendovidis has asked that we stick to the topic of the opening question, yet doesn't want to discuss evolution. The problem here is that those who believe in God hold that the “fist cause” isn't shown by the theories of evolution. Thus we conclude there is a cause for our existence that is supernatural in nature and represents the CAUSE of all things natural.

We see Tj3's statement >"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists",
In response Credendovidis writes >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.

Like me, many hold that evolution is an unproven theory. In keeping with Carol Sagan's statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” we find Darwinian theories unproven by any scientific measure. Usually, we look for laboratory results to provide conformation of the theories to be in the range 90% to 98% of certainty on repetitive testing; it is critical that we use the upper range in important social and economic issues. Yet, we find that Darwinist have not produced one solitary single cell in the laboratory under the conditions resembling those of pre-biological earth. Even still, it is taught in secular schools as fact.

I would put the onus of proof on the Darwinist to show how evolution is the “fist cause” of mankind. While those who believe in God can't produce God for your inspection, measurement, or evaluation, we can produce for you a postpriori knowledge of his existence. See my post. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/objective-supported-evidence-gods-existence-271164-12.html#post1350815)


Consequently, by prohibiting discussions on evolution, the discussion becomes constrained forcing out one of the two protagonists; the debate becomes spurious. But maybe this is by design? Is this the only way atheist “groupthink?”

JoeT

Tj,
Is your plan to win people over to your side by making them understand that logically a god has to exist for the universe to exist?

I have no plan. Cred asked me a question on another board and I answered it. Neither he nor any of his friends have been able to provide an answer to the points which were raised, and that is why he is getting so upset here. He said in the OP that he expected the evolutionists to have an answer. When they did not, he tried to shut down the discussion.

So, since he is the one who posted that here, maybe you should ask him what his plan was.

I don't see the point of this discussion. Even if I were able to prove the existance of God, ( which i think tj3 has given compelling evidence), the Bible says you have to believe that He IS. God requires us to have Faith, because that pleases him and it is impossible to come to him WITHOUT it. For me, it is a waste of time to try to prove it.

Yep, you are absolutely right. As shown on here, even when evidence is provided, no one ultimately is saved through logic and evidence, but rather through coming to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and by believing in Him.

On the other board that Cred and I were on, he just kept posting demanding proof, and so I started posting these examples one at a time (as did other Christians). Neither he nor his fellow atheists had answer. Then he posted them on here in the hopes that the evolutionists on here had answers. They didn't. That is how this came about.

What would be good would be if some of those who currently reject God continue to think about this, and continue to do their research into these topics. In Romans Paul said:

Romans 1:20-21
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

So the truth of God's existence is shown in nature, but it is up to each of us to be willing to examine these facts with the willingness to accept truth wherever it may lead.

ClassyT,
Have you ever heard extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It means the larger your claim the better your evidence needs to be. Even if we don't have a single answer to TJ3's question all it means is we don't know the answer right now. It doesn't mean god did it. If anything that history has taught us it is that we don't know everything.

One does not need to know everything to know if something is feasible. If I asked you if it were feasible for you to lift an average size house with your bare hands, the answer is no for several reasons, not just your muscular strength, but also the ability of the bones of your body to sustain that type of weight. I don't need to know everything to know that to be true. I don't need to go to medical school to find out that answer. I don't need to know how the muscles in the body work.

There are some things that can be determined without the need to know all the details. For example, if you have a cell with several hundred essential processes which must all be there for the fuinctioning of the cell, and if any one of them is not there, the cell dies, then we know that it is not feasible for that cell to have developed each process individually over millions of years. Therefore, if you are to reject creation or intelligent design, you need to demonstrate that there is a feasible way in which this could come to be. You don't need to know everything, but what are possible steps that could lead to this result. Simple saying we have chemicals, add a few billions years and voilà! Does not provide us with a feasible process.

Now are these reasonable questions to expect answers for? I think so. I deal with design issues and other issues all the time that require that one determine if something is even feasible before all the research and details are done. This happenes all the time in induistry. How do you think that multi-million dollar quotes for huge projects are put together. Do you think that they work out all the details first? Besides, Cred says that he has answers but won't tell us what they are.

Michaelb,

LOL...that was a ridiculous post. You do not understand scripture or GOD. He loves me unconditionally because I am in CHRIST, i don't stone my children and i can take medicine.

My point was that it wouldn't make an atheist bow the knee even with proof. It takes faith. That was my point.

Perhaps you should read the bible and find out how violent the book really is

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

This is supposedly the word of god and if your god is proven true you would have no excuse no to obey this law. Even if you didn't want to the rest of the village would do it for you so not to evoke the wrath of god.


The only reason it requires faith is because there is no proof. If there was proof it wouldn't be a matter of faith and all would worship or be put to death as the bible commands.

Deuteronomy 13:13-15
13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

TJ3,

It is the perfect example of what the apostle paul taught.. thinking themselves wise they became as fools. But then again, God said.. The fool has said in his heart.. there is no God. Very sobering thought.

Michael,

I have read the Bible and I DO know what it says. That was under the law... I'm not living under the law.That isn't to say that God has changed his mind.. he still views sin the same way.

It appears you have a problem with the sovereignty of God. If that is the case, you need to take that up with him. I surely do not need to defend him.

Perhaps you should read the bible and find out how violent the book really is

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

This is supposedly the word of god and if your god is proven true you would have no excuse no to obey this law. Even if you didn't want to the rest of the village would do it for you so not to evoke the wrath of god.

How is it that somebody who doesn't believe in God has morals enough to pass judgment on these people? If they are all super-ameba what difference does it make what they do? Aren't morals developed from the desire to do those things God finds good? How do you have morals without a God; or are morals subjective - what's good for me is bad for you? So, you see yourself morally equivalent to those described here?

Now you've got me confused. I didn't think you believed in God?

JoeT

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.

How is it that somebody who doesn’t believe in God has morals enough to pass judgment on these people? If they are all super-ameba what difference is it to you what they do? Aren’t morals developed from the desire to do those things God finds good? How do you have morals without a God; or are morals subjective - what's good for me is bad for you? So you see yourself morally equivalent those described here?

Now you’ve got me confused. I didn’t think you believed in God.

JoeT

This is a common misconception by religious people.

Human morals have been around long before the bible and every culture in the world regardless of religion has some sort of moral code and they are mostly similar. The reason for this is evolution. People even before they were people found out that they had a much better chance at survival if they lived in groups. Once you start to live in groups social behavior starts to develop. Such as it wouldn't do us much good to live in groups if one member goes around and kills everyone because he loses the benefit of the group and his line dies off. Like wise if one member goes around and steals everything, the others are likely to kick him out of the group and he loses the group benefit and his genes die off. It's this group dynamic that molds humans to what they are today. Think of it this way if you found out today that this is your only life to live that after you die there is nothing would you not act exactly as you act today except for may be treasuring your life a bit more. That's what I do because what is good for the group is good for me and my offspring even though on the surface it may seem counter productive.

If you need more evidence for this look at animal groups. You will see the larger and more social the group the more "moral" they are to their particular group. Humans live in the largest of groups of any great ape. Therefor we are the most moral as well.

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.

I don’t think its hate. It’s about people placing rationality, relativism, and naturalism above God’s absolute will. Not being able to measure the supernatural, those who don’t believe in God make God’s supernatural creation conform to the natural by ignoring it (or renouncing it). The only thing I’m objecting to is turning Christian morality around against God. It’s a double standard sort of thing.

JoeT

I don’t think its hate. It’s about people placing rationality, relativism, and naturalism above God’s absolute will. Not being able to measure the supernatural, those who don’t believe in God make God’s supernatural creation conform to the natural by ignoring it (or renouncing it). The only thing I’m objecting to is turning Christian morality around against God. It’s a double standard sort of thing.

JoeT

JoeT,

I guess you are nicer than me. :) I think the fact that God is Sovereign sticks in the craw of many.

I'm sure it does for some but not real atheists. Most of us have concluded that logically your god doesn't exist. Saying that we are mad at god is like saying you still get mad at Santa Clause during christmas because he didn't bring you what you wanted or saying that you get mad at Zeus when things don't go your way. It's silly when you think about it.

It's the question of accepting something as a truth on faith that we have a problem with because when you accept something as true on faith you don't know whose truth your getting. Is it the will of the church? God? Your pastor? The government? How do you know and are you even capable of knowing? There are many people who have followed cult leaders and would swear that they are following the correct path with more will than any of us have ever had. I am not so proud as to say that I am better than everyone that has ever followed a cult therefor I don't take anything so lightly that I take it on faith.

This is a common misconception by religious people.
Human morals have been around long before the bible and every culture in the world regardless of religion has some sort of moral code and they are mostly similar.

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.


The reason for this is evolution. People even before they were people found out that they had a much better chance at survival if they lived in groups. Once you start to live in groups social behavior starts to develop. Such as it wouldn't do us much good to live in groups if one member goes around and kills everyone because he loses the benefit of the group and his line dies off. Likewise if one member goes around and steals everything, the others are likely to kick him out of the group and he loses the group benefit and his genes die off. It's this group dynamic that molds humans to what they are today.

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 there wouldn't be so many shootings?


Think of it this way if you found out today that this is your only life to live that after you die there is nothing would you not act exactly as you act today except for maybe treasuring your life a bit more. That's what I do because what is good for the group is good for me and my offspring even though on the surface it may seem counterproductive.

Without a God, what's the point – the strongest, fastest shooting, straightest shooter, meanest bad guy wins.


If you need more evidence for this look at animal groups. You will see the larger and more social the group the more "moral" they are to their particular group. Humans live in the largest of groups of any great ape. Therefore we are the most moral as well.

Forgive me if 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.

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