Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

And as I said you can't claim god did it till you prove god. Otherwise I can say it was done by bigfoots with fairy wings and you can't prove me wrong based on your method of evidence.

This has nothing to do with my belief in the super natural. It is simply a matter of evidence. Every solution we have ever found has been a natural solution even things that at one time were attributed to the supernatural were found to have natural solutions. So until you prove one supernatural solution you can't invoke it when talking about science.

So once again the only evidence for god is evidence of the super natural. Prove ghosts, goblins, demons, devils, angels, or god himself. Then we will talk about using them in scientific theory until then your wrong...

---

Evolution's New Wrinkle: Proteins With 'Cruise Control' Act Like Adaptive Machines

Quote:

---

"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. "Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."



How did these proteins develop these abilities in the first place?





... certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices.




Note the comparison to man made intelligent design




The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."





again the comparison to man made intelligent design and the if

---

Michael, don't you understand how factual science brings up more and more questions of evolution that cannot only be answered by terms like "if" or "theory". Evolution is not a fact - evn these scientists would term it as such. Evolution is conditional upon a "ifs" and science is discovering more and more design and complexity that can't be factually attributed to the THEORY of evolution.

You should really read the entire article before you post them otherwise the end of the article might not support your position

Quote:

---

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature.
Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the generation of complex biological structures. "Such principles are fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity."

---

That is a self interested statement - he cannot factually explain the "pivotal juncture."

The actual facts are evidence of design - their analogy to cruise cntrol or thermostats and other man made thought out designs betrays what they truly think

The analogies are there to make it easier for you to understand what the proteins do, not to imply that they are designed.

You unfornately you used your own reasoning instead of theirs. Forgive me if I assume they say what they mean instead of injecting my own opinion into their heads as your doing.

I used quoted their own words.

Now I ask, how did proteins, theoretically a product of evolution,

1] develop the ability to control the actual process that controls them? Are proteins "intelligent" controlling their destiny like we humans do in genetics and medicine?

2] how did this ability of proteins to "control evolution" get translated to a genetic code that can be reproduced? Which came first the protein or the genetic code? HOw?

Modern science is showing evidence that only brings more and more questions about evolution. That is what the article is about.





Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

These scientists cannot agree either on the "facts"

Ladies and Gentlemen : can we please get back on-topic again ?

Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Can any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not about the existence of "God" itself be used as valid OSE for the existence of "God"?? Or does valid OSE for the existence of "God" have to be about the existence of "God", and not about anything else ?

Or is the existence of "God" something you just BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE ?

:)

.

.

Inthebox,

That is great that 16 people can get together and talk about other theories than evolution and if they come up with any proof I'll welcome it. However until they have proof their opinion is simply their opinion. Also why would you bring philosophers to a science meeting? Something's fishy about that...

Regardless though disproving evolution doesn't prove god. It just disproves evolution.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Inthebox, That is great that 16 people can get together and talk about other theories than evolution and if they come up with any proof I'll welcome it.

---

It was a consensus! Thus we can conclude that 98% of all experiments show that Darwinism is wrong – since 100% of these 16 said so. Isn’t that the way science works?

Scientific theories are changing to fit the evidence? Heresy! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Scientific theories are changing to fit the evidence? Heresy! :rolleyes:

---

Yeah! Heresy!

Let’s see the mutable word of science or the immutable word of God; which is better? Which would I rather believe in? I’m at a loss Cap, help me out.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Yeah! Heresy!

Let’s see the mutable word of science or the immutable word of God; which is better? Which would I rather believe in? I’m at a loss Cap, help me out.

JoeT

---

The answer is the mutable word of science.

I don't know if given a choice, I'd think I'd rather live in a fantasy world. My brain just won't let me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

That is true. You just have warped sense of what is feasible compared to 99% of the scientists out there. You believe a supernatural solution that hasn't been proven makes more sense than a natural solution that hasn't been proven. Then try to say your supernatural solution is the one and only solution.

---

Michael,

I wonder why yopu keep twisting what I said. Let me say it again. I am prepared to discuss ithis issue SOLELY on the basis of what can be shown scientifically. And for some reason, it is the atheists who keep wanting to deviate away from the science basis for the discussion.

Quote:

---

Your ideas and concepts show no grounding in reality or science as the rest of us know it.

---

Personal attacks prove nothing other that you are not prepared to discuss this issue on a purely scientific basis. I have validated each of my points, and you keep backing away from using science.

I would love to have a debate based solely on science the problem is your definition of what is evidence and what is not does not meet the same standards as the scientific community has.
Even when you are proven 100% wrong you don't admit it. So what's the point of arguing with you. If your not going to learn anything by me doing it.

I have given you the evidence from the link to science daily article.

Is there a proven "natural" explanation to the genetic code, proteins that self regulate, how these proteins came to be?. they're super natural as you say.

And the link to the phd's that could not agree on evolution - what is your academic background that qualifies you to supercede phds? Or is it your faith in evolution that leads you to the conclusions that you reach?

Yours truly - BS bio / medical - Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I wonder why you keep twisting what I said.... I am prepared to discuss .... of what can be shown scientifically.... atheists who keep wanting to deviate away from the science basis.... Personal attacks prove nothing .... I have validated each of my points .... you keep backing away from using science.

---

Typical Tj3...

Tj3 refers to opponents and insists on others twisting of what was said, but often does exactly the same.

Tj3 offers to discuss the issue on a scientific basis, but posts statements that are at best pseudo-scientific and that refer to something entirely different.

Tj3 posts deliberately and repeatedly off-topic, and laments that "Atheists" want to deviate away from the science basis for "the discussion" - when he means his discussion (which is deliberately off-topic).

Tj3 "cries" that personal attacks prove nothing.. but follows that frequently with posts that have a core of personal revenge and intolerance, and that are in effect personal attacks themselves.

Tj3 claims that he has validated each of his points, but in effect never does that, and shies away the moment you request him to back-up his wild claims with valid evidence (OSE).

Tj3 suggests that others keep backing away from using science, when he himself refuses to provide OSE for his own wild claims, and when he provides his pseudo-scientific "back-up" it is not for the topic, but for an entire different and off-topic item.

You would almost expect this is in that respect a copy of the "What is truth" topic.

Note that this topic is called : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Also note that this topic in effect is questioning if any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not itself about the existence of "God", can be used as VALID OSE for the existence of "God".

I strongly suggest that any claim towards the existence of "God" has to be DIRECT and VALID OSE for the existence of "God", and for nothing else.

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

Ladies and Gentlemen : can we please get back on-topic again ?


:)

.

.

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him. He believes that there is no God, and yet refuses to provide any OSE. He attacks those that do provide OSE for a creator, and refuses to actually engage on the topic.

When people do post evidence that disagrees with him, he tries to change the topic.

Yes, can we get back on the topic?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him.

---

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

Next to that I always try to get back to the topic itself, and restart with the original topic question, which is here :

Note that this topic is called : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Also note that this topic in effect is questioning if any query or reply to that query (in this topic a list of queries on evolution was used) that is not itself about the existence of "God", can be used as VALID OSE for the existence of "God".

I strongly suggest that any claim towards the existence of "God" has to be DIRECT and VALID OSE for the existence of "God", and for nothing else.

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

So all : can we please get back on-topic again ?

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is interesting to note that Cred rarely posts a message where he does not attack those who disagree with him. He believes that there is no God, and yet refuses to provide any OSE. He attacks those that do provide OSE for a creator, and refuses to actually engage on the topic.

---

You can't provide OSE for something that doesn't exist that why you won't get any atheist to prove that there isn't a god. It's just like bigfoot. Even if we cut down every forest in the world you would still have people that say we didn't account for his invisibility powers. Which makes it impossible to prove a negative of that scale.

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

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

---

Ho hum... same old same old.

Cred, if you spent half the time doing your research and dealing with the topic as you do posting abuse, you would be a much stronger contributor and a much stronger defending of your faith in evolution and the belief that there is no God.

Quote:

---

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

---

The reality is the belief that there is no God is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

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

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

For example when we see the design of the following, we see the evidence of design:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

You can't provide OSE for something that doesn't exist that why you won't get any atheist to prove that there isn't a god.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

---

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

Tj3

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

The reality is the the belief that there is no God is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

---

Another nonsensical and invalid remark in respect to what was posted earlier.
You know very well that I never claimed that there is no "God".
It is impossible to prove the negative claim that "God" does not exist.
And despite many requests thereto theists failed so far to prove the MUCH-EASIER-TO-PROVE positive claim that "God" exists.

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

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

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

---

After thousands of years leading to and including Christianity there never was any OSE for the multitude of religious claims.
Since the ever faster development of science we know in a few hundred years millions of times more about nature than religion ever provided over these many thousands of years.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

---

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

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

.

.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is that supernatural means? GOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

---

You can call whatever you like.
But I am not discussing here queries on evolution. There is a special topic opened for that.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

---

You know my answer to this : the existence of "God" can only be OSE proved by direct evidence for the existence of "God" and by nothing else.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

What is that supernatural means? GOD.

---

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

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

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

---

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

Quote:

---

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

So all : can we please get back on-topic again ?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Tj3

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

---

And that line is NOT abuse??

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

---

Ask that question where it belongs : see the board with queries about evolution LINK !

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

---

Another deliberate clear Tj3 lie : I NEVER argued that there is no "God".
I say that there is no OSE, no "proof" for the existence of "God".

Tj3 : lying to support "God"!!

:D :D :D :D

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

And that line is NOT abuse??

---

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

I know some cults who would welcome you!

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

So, what you are saying Cred .....

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

that you can falsely accuse ...

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

---

Everything is possible. That "God" exists seems to me highly unlikely, but it is possible.
And I note that I also have stated that clearly!!

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

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

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Shall I post it again?

Tj3 :

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

I wonder why...

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

.

.

[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Tj3 :

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

And that line is NOT abuse ???

:D



.

.

---

Cred,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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

---

For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

---

Thanks Tj3!

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

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

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

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

How is your argument different from these arguments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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

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

---

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

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

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