For all participating here :

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

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


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

.

.

Cred,

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

In his OP, Cred says:

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

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

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

:)

.

.

---

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

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods as evolutionists contend. The tests were conducted by conference speaker Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field, accompanying Berthault’s tests, showed that major rock formations deposited in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale. (Press release: World-Renowned Scientists to Present Facts Against Evolution at Conference in Rome Participants Answer Pope Benedict’s Call for Truth and Tolerance in Evolution Debate FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OCTOBER 27, 2008)

Also See Conference (SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION)

What could this do to michealb's 4.4 Billion Years?

The point is that consensus science leads to junk science


JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods of time as evolutionists contend.

---

There were also some excellent scientific studies regarding the stratification that occurred during the Mount St. Helen's eruption that proved that such an event could easily duplicate the stratification in an extremely short timeframe.

http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/sthelens.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

In his OP, Cred says : "Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions"

---

Tommy : I also clearly and repeatedly stated that such replies should be replied to on the Evolution board, and not here, as here the issue is not your queries on evolution, but if any answer to your queries can be considered (as you claim) to be "evidence for the existence of "God"".

Tj3 : I have reported you for deliberate abuse here in this topic.

===

For all participating here :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

Cred,

I see that you cannot even tolerate when scientific papers which disagree with you are posted. Why would someone who claims to believe in science, try so hard to stop and interfere with discussions on the science of creation?

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

In his OP, Cred says:

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual response to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists. Sometimes they also plead for the discussion to end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Just to change the subject a bit see the following - it shows :
Arguments against evolution are ...

---

Joe I have to ask you too to stop posting here about the actual evolution queries or evolution in general, as this topic is not about evolution : the OS refers to Tj3's claims that the lack of any proper reply to these queries are "evidence" for the existence of "God".

I question that approach.

The only evidence for the existence of "God" is OSE proof for the existence of "God".
Nothing else will do.

One can only BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".
You confirmed that yourself earlier here.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I see that you cannot even tolerate when scientific papers which disagree with you are posted.

---

I have asked you repeatedly to stop pushing these queries. This topic is about your approach that lack of "perfect" responses to your queries are evidence for the "existence of "God"".

Only OSE proof for the existence of "God" can be used as evidence for the existence of "God".

As stated : I have reported your abuse here.

Please note that your attempt to get me abusive here is doomed to fail.

In the meantime you provide a clear example of your own abusive approach towards others.

:(

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Joe I have to ask you too to stop posting here about the actual evolution queries or evolution in general, as this topic is not about evolution : the OS refers to Tj3's claims that the lack of any proper reply to these queries are "evidence" for the existence of "God".

---

The OP says:


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

I have seen many reactions to the scientific evidence being posted regarding creation, but I have never seen such constant demands that everyone stop discussing the science regarding creation!

I can think of only one reason why there would be such fear of science. It interferes with one's BELIEFs.

Cred, instead of trying to stop people from discusing the scientific evidence (especially when you started the discussion), why not join in a respectful discussion of the science of creation.

Those who love truth have nothing to fear from the truth.

To try to get this back on the topic of science:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods of time as evolutionists contend.

---

There were also some excellent scientific studies regarding the stratification that occurred during the Mount St. Helen's eruption that proved that such an event could easily duplicate the stratification in an extremely short timeframe.

Mount St. Helens And Catastrophism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I have seen many reactions to the scientific evidence being posted regarding creation, but I have never seen such constant demands that everyone stop discussing the science regarding creation!!

---

Tommy : I have asked you repeatedly to stop pushing these queries. This topic is about your approach that lack of "perfect" responses to your queries are evidence for the "existence of "God"".

Only OSE proof for the existence of "God" can be used as evidence for the existence of "God".

As stated : I have reported your abuse here.

Please note that your attempt to get me abusive here is doomed to fail.

In the meantime you provide a clear example of your own abusive approach towards others.

:(

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Tommy : I have asked you repeatedly to stop pushing these queries. This topic is about your approach that lack of "perfect" responses to your queries are evidence for the "existence of "God"".

Only OSE proof for the existence of "God" can be used as evidence for the existence of "God".

As stated : I have reported your abuse here.

Please note that your attempt to get me abusive here is doomed to fail.

In the meantime you provide a clear example of your own abusive approach towards others.

:(

.

.

---

Cred,

Fine, you reported it. Now let that process take it's course and let those who wish to discuss the topic continue to do so!

I have no interest in your interruptions because we may disagree with your BELIEFS, nor do I have any interest in your abuse and false accusations.

So, if you reported it, then allow the mods to do their job and in the meantime, let those who wish to discuss the topic, do so!

Those who love truth do not need to fear truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Now let that process take it's course and let those who wish to discuss the topic continue to do so!!

---

This topic is NOT about evolution or your queries on evolution.
I know, as I started THIS TOPIC!

So all I want is to get back on thread : MY THREAD.

The thread about the argument that any evidence for the existence of "God" can only be valid if supported by OSE for the existence of "God".

If you want to continue with your queries on evolution DO THAT ON THE EVOLUTION BOARD, WHERE IT BELONGS !!

:(

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

This topic is NOT about evolution or your queries on evolution.

---

I did not raise any queries on evolution.

Quote:

---

I know, as I started THIS TOPIC!

---

Starting the topic does not give you the right to abuse others who wish to discuss it when things go contrary to your beliefs.

Or to change the topic when people don't agree with what you would like. Here is a quote from the OP;


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

Apparently you are unhappy because they have been unable to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Starting the tiopic does not give you the right to abuse others who wish to discuss it when things go contrary to your beliefs.

---

I do not abuse anyone, Tommy.
All I want is to get back to the thread of this topic.

The thread about the argument that any evidence for the existence of "God" can only be valid if supported by OSE for the existence of "God".

If you want to continue with your queries on evolution DO THAT ON THE EVOLUTION BOARD, WHERE IT BELONGS!!

:(

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I do not abuse anyone, Tommy.

---

Your posts say otherwise

Quote:

---

All I want is to get back to the thread of this topic.

---

Good! I hope that this means that you will stop interrupting those who are trying to discuss it.

Now that Cred says that he wants to get back to the topic, let's try to get back on the original topic with the hope that there will be no further interruptions:


Cred says in the OP - ""Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions"". We are still waiting for atheists / evolutionists to provide a feasible answer to these questions as suggested by Cred:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIVING BELL SPIDER

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

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I hope that this means that you will stop interrupting those who are trying to discuss it.

---

No Tommy : it means that I will keep trying to get back to the topic I posted to this board, and that I will keep reporting you for abuse here, every time you try to return to your evolution queries instead of addressing the topic issue itself.

Now be nice, and start your own topic on evolution queries.

Remember why your were suspended from AW...

:(

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No Tommy : it means that I will keep trying to get back to the topic I posted to this board, and that I will keep reporting you for abuse here, every time you try to return to your evolution queries instead of addressing the topic issue itself.

---

Oh, so it means that you will keep abusing those who try to discuss the original topic.

Are you saying that want to discuss why you were one of the most frequently suspended persons on the other boards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Now that Cred says that he wants ...

---

I want to get back to the topic question. Not to what you BELIEVE to be the topic question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Oh, so it means that you will keep abusing those who try to discuss the original topic ...

---

Returning to the REAL original topic thread is now abuse ? Get real, Tommy !

You have been reported for abuse once again...

:(

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I want to get back to the topic question. Not to what you BELIEVE to be the topic question ...

---

I am trying to get back to the original question in the OP, not the one that you decided that you would prefer it to be after things went contrary to what you hoped.

Since you reported, why can't you just let the discussion carrying on and let the mods do their job. Or does the discussion of the science of creation cause you some anxiety?

Here is another question related to the original question. Can anyone provide a feasible method by which this animal was created by natural means?

MARSUPIAL LION

Thylacoleonidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Here is another question related to the original question.

---

Tommy : once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

Please do not post here anymore about evolution, but instead return to the oroignal topic .

Your attempt to drive my to abusive reactions is doomed to fail...

:)

.

.

For all :

Please remember that this topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God", and if not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on evolution - how interesting each of them may be - can be considered valid evidence on the existence of "God".

Please do not post here anymore about evolution, but instead return to the real topic question.

I'm off to sleep now. See you tomorrow.

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Tommy : once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

---

Cred,

I did not bring evolution into it. I will continue to post on the original topic. Once again, please do not interfere with those who do wish to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions tend to restrict their presentations to data that support the theory of evolution. For example, recent laboratory tests have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly – not over extended periods of time as evolutionists contend. The tests were conducted by conference speaker Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field, accompanying Berthault’s tests, showed that major rock formations deposited in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale. (Press release: World-Renowned Scientists to Present Facts Against Evolution at Conference in Rome Participants Answer Pope Benedict’s Call for Truth and Tolerance in Evolution Debate FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OCTOBER 27, 2008)

Also See Conference (SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION)

What could this do to michealb's 4.4 Billion Years?

The point is that consensus science leads to junk science


JoeT

---

Good post Joe and a good link!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

De Maria,

It appears that you were right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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

---

Good question. It would be nice if we could get an answer to these questions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Cred, I did not bring evolution into it. I will continue to post on the original topic. Once again, please do not interfere with those who do wish to discuss.

---

Tommy : the only thing you refer to here is evolution, despite that you know that this is not on-topic. Once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

Please do not post here anymore about evolution, but instead return to the orignal topic , i.e. to if any response to any question can be used as evidence on the existence of "God", or that only OSE support can be used as evidence on the existence of "God".

Every future attempt to discuss queries on evolution here will result in me reporting you for abuse.

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Tommy : the only thing you refer to here is evolution, despite that you know that this is not on-topic. Once more : the original topic is not about evolution, but about evidence on the existence of "God".

---

Cred,

Over and over again, I corrected those including you who say that I am attacking evolution. The truth is that YOU were the one who mentioned evolution in the OP by asking evolutionists to provide answers.

I have consistently ask for a natural explanation. Now if you are saying that the natural alternative is evolution, then you have basically defeated your whole argument.

If you feel that there is a natural way in which these could have happened without evolution, I am listening - post iot now. Join in the discussion rather than trying to stop the discussion because you don't like the outcome.

Tj,
Is your plan to win people over to your side by making them understand that logically a god has to exist for the universe to exist? Do you think that will make a difference to people who currently live their lives without the need of belief in a god or need to worship and congregate?

Got to go give blood to save a life. Cheers!

NK.

I don't see the point of this discussion. Even if I were able to prove the existence of God, ( which I think tj3 has given compelling evidence), the Bible says you have to believe that He IS. God requires us to have Faith, because that pleases him and it is impossible to come to him WITHOUT it. For me, it is a waste of time to try to prove it.

When the Lord Jesus called Lazarus out of the grave, many left unbelieving. If my Lord and Savior couldn't convince everyone, I certainly can't. Why? It takes FAITH. You cannot come to God without it.

In my mind the examples that TJ3 gives could NEVER happen naturally. But I don't think God cares whether we PROVE he exists. AND I will go a step further, even if we can prove it it would change nothing.

I agree with ClassyT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Tj,
Is your plan to win people over to your side by making them understand that logically a god has to exist for the universe to exist? Do you think that will amke a difference to people who currently live their lives without the need of belief in a god or need to worship and congregate?

Gotta go give blood to save a life. Cheers!

NK.

---

NK,

You proved my point. It makes no difference whether we can prove it or not.

ClassyT,

Have you ever heard extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It means the larger your claim the better your evidence needs to be. Even if we don't have a single answer to TJ3's question all it means is we don't know the answer right now. It doesn't mean god did it. If anything that history has taught us it is that we don't know everything.

I also beg to differ on the claim that it would change nothing. If there was proof of the Christian god. We would have to examine the rules closer and follow them stricter. You would no longer risk your immortal soul and not stone your children when they misbehave. You should go out and slay all non-believers without mercy as the bible commands you to. Many would stop taking life saving medicine because after all when you die you would have proof of going to heaven so why delay it. These are just a few there are many other things that would change if we had proof.

Michaelb,

LOL... that was a ridiculous post. You do not understand scripture or GOD. He loves me unconditionally because I am in CHRIST, I don't stone my children and I can take medicine.

My point was that it wouldn't make an atheist bow the knee even with proof. It takes faith. That was my point.

All:

Credendovidis has asked that we stick to the topic of the opening question, yet doesn't want to discuss evolution. The problem here is that those who believe in God hold that the “fist cause” isn't shown by the theories of evolution. Thus we conclude there is a cause for our existence that is supernatural in nature and represents the CAUSE of all things natural.

We see Tj3's statement >"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists",
In response Credendovidis writes >Toms stated. But that is of course nonsense. Who decides if there was no other possible mean? Even if at this moment we do not know such mean, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

Like me, many hold that evolution is an unproven theory. In keeping with Carol Sagan's statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” we find Darwinian theories unproven by any scientific measure. Usually, we look for laboratory results to provide conformation of the theories to be in the range 90% to 98% of certainty on repetitive testing; it is critical that we use the upper range in important social and economic issues. Yet, we find that Darwinist have not produced one solitary single cell in the laboratory under the conditions resembling those of pre-biological earth. Even still, it is taught in secular schools as fact.

I would put the onus of proof on the Darwinist to show how evolution is the “fist cause” of mankind. While those who believe in God can't produce God for your inspection, measurement, or evaluation, we can produce for you a postpriori knowledge of his existence. See my post.


Consequently, by prohibiting discussions on evolution, the discussion becomes constrained forcing out one of the two protagonists; the debate becomes spurious. But maybe this is by design? Is this the only way atheist “groupthink?”

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Tj,
Is your plan to win people over to your side by making them understand that logically a god has to exist for the universe to exist?

---

I have no plan. Cred asked me a question on another board and I answered it. Neither he nor any of his friends have been able to provide an answer to the points which were raised, and that is why he is getting so upset here. He said in the OP that he expected the evolutionists to have an answer. When they did not, he tried to shut down the discussion.

So, since he is the one who posted that here, maybe you should ask him what his plan was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

I don't see the point of this discussion. Even if I were able to prove the existance of God, ( which i think tj3 has given compelling evidence), the Bible says you have to believe that He IS. God requires us to have Faith, because that pleases him and it is impossible to come to him WITHOUT it. For me, it is a waste of time to try to prove it.

---

Yep, you are absolutely right. As shown on here, even when evidence is provided, no one ultimately is saved through logic and evidence, but rather through coming to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and by believing in Him.

On the other board that Cred and I were on, he just kept posting demanding proof, and so I started posting these examples one at a time (as did other Christians). Neither he nor his fellow atheists had answer. Then he posted them on here in the hopes that the evolutionists on here had answers. They didn't. That is how this came about.

What would be good would be if some of those who currently reject God continue to think about this, and continue to do their research into these topics. In Romans Paul said:

Romans 1:20-21
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

So the truth of God's existence is shown in nature, but it is up to each of us to be willing to examine these facts with the willingness to accept truth wherever it may lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

ClassyT,
Have you ever heard extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It means the larger your claim the better your evidence needs to be. Even if we don't have a single answer to TJ3's question all it means is we don't know the answer right now. It doesn't mean god did it. If anything that history has taught us it is that we don't know everything.

---

One does not need to know everything to know if something is feasible. If I asked you if it were feasible for you to lift an average size house with your bare hands, the answer is no for several reasons, not just your muscular strength, but also the ability of the bones of your body to sustain that type of weight. I don't need to know everything to know that to be true. I don't need to go to medical school to find out that answer. I don't need to know how the muscles in the body work.

There are some things that can be determined without the need to know all the details. For example, if you have a cell with several hundred essential processes which must all be there for the fuinctioning of the cell, and if any one of them is not there, the cell dies, then we know that it is not feasible for that cell to have developed each process individually over millions of years. Therefore, if you are to reject creation or intelligent design, you need to demonstrate that there is a feasible way in which this could come to be. You don't need to know everything, but what are possible steps that could lead to this result. Simple saying we have chemicals, add a few billions years and voilà! Does not provide us with a feasible process.

Now are these reasonable questions to expect answers for? I think so. I deal with design issues and other issues all the time that require that one determine if something is even feasible before all the research and details are done. This happenes all the time in induistry. How do you think that multi-million dollar quotes for huge projects are put together. Do you think that they work out all the details first? Besides, Cred says that he has answers but won't tell us what they are.