Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davers

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.

Quote:

---

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
So your argument about evolution falls apart. Since the experiment proves complex new traits can arise though evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Answer me this - who made God?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

No one.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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 #.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Just because you choose to ignore facts is meaning less.

---

I ignore unvalidated claims.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

I ignore unvalidated claims.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

"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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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?

Quote:

---

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 :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

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