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. 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

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. 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

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 :]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viloen

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.