Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Michaelb,

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

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

---

Perhaps you should read the bible and find out how violent the book really is

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

This is supposedly the word of god and if your god is proven true you would have no excuse no to obey this law. Even if you didn't want to the rest of the village would do it for you so not to evoke the wrath of god.


The only reason it requires faith is because there is no proof. If there was proof it wouldn't be a matter of faith and all would worship or be put to death as the bible commands.

Deuteronomy 13:13-15
13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

TJ3,

It is the perfect example of what the apostle paul taught.. thinking themselves wise they became as fools. But then again, God said.. The fool has said in his heart.. there is no God. Very sobering thought.

Michael,

I have read the Bible and I DO know what it says. That was under the law... I'm not living under the law.That isn't to say that God has changed his mind.. he still views sin the same way.

It appears you have a problem with the sovereignty of God. If that is the case, you need to take that up with him. I surely do not need to defend him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Perhaps you should read the bible and find out how violent the book really is

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

This is supposedly the word of god and if your god is proven true you would have no excuse no to obey this law. Even if you didn't want to the rest of the village would do it for you so not to evoke the wrath of god.

---

How is it that somebody who doesn't believe in God has morals enough to pass judgment on these people? If they are all super-ameba what difference does it make what they do? Aren't morals developed from the desire to do those things God finds good? How do you have morals without a God; or are morals subjective - what's good for me is bad for you? So, you see yourself morally equivalent to those described here?

Now you've got me confused. I didn't think you believed in God?

JoeT

JoeT,

I have had atheists argue about God's soveriegnty MORE than they argue He doesn't exist. I mostly think a lot just hate the fact that he is sovereign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

How is it that somebody who doesn’t believe in God has morals enough to pass judgment on these people? If they are all super-ameba what difference is it to you what they do? Aren’t morals developed from the desire to do those things God finds good? How do you have morals without a God; or are morals subjective - what's good for me is bad for you? So you see yourself morally equivalent those described here?

Now you’ve got me confused. I didn’t think you believed in God.

JoeT

---

This is a common misconception by religious people.

Human morals have been around long before the bible and every culture in the world regardless of religion has some sort of moral code and they are mostly similar. The reason for this is evolution. People even before they were people found out that they had a much better chance at survival if they lived in groups. Once you start to live in groups social behavior starts to develop. Such as it wouldn't do us much good to live in groups if one member goes around and kills everyone because he loses the benefit of the group and his line dies off. Like wise if one member goes around and steals everything, the others are likely to kick him out of the group and he loses the group benefit and his genes die off. It's this group dynamic that molds humans to what they are today. Think of it this way if you found out today that this is your only life to live that after you die there is nothing would you not act exactly as you act today except for may be treasuring your life a bit more. That's what I do because what is good for the group is good for me and my offspring even though on the surface it may seem counter productive.

If you need more evidence for this look at animal groups. You will see the larger and more social the group the more "moral" they are to their particular group. Humans live in the largest of groups of any great ape. Therefor we are the most moral as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

JoeT,

I have had atheists argue about God's soveriegnty MORE than they argue He doesn't exist. I mostly think a lot just hate the fact that he is sovereign.

---

I don’t think its hate. It’s about people placing rationality, relativism, and naturalism above God’s absolute will. Not being able to measure the supernatural, those who don’t believe in God make God’s supernatural creation conform to the natural by ignoring it (or renouncing it). The only thing I’m objecting to is turning Christian morality around against God. It’s a double standard sort of thing.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I don’t think its hate. It’s about people placing rationality, relativism, and naturalism above God’s absolute will. Not being able to measure the supernatural, those who don’t believe in God make God’s supernatural creation conform to the natural by ignoring it (or renouncing it). The only thing I’m objecting to is turning Christian morality around against God. It’s a double standard sort of thing.

JoeT

---

JoeT,

I guess you are nicer than me. :) I think the fact that God is Sovereign sticks in the craw of many.

I'm sure it does for some but not real atheists. Most of us have concluded that logically your god doesn't exist. Saying that we are mad at god is like saying you still get mad at Santa Clause during christmas because he didn't bring you what you wanted or saying that you get mad at Zeus when things don't go your way. It's silly when you think about it.

It's the question of accepting something as a truth on faith that we have a problem with because when you accept something as true on faith you don't know whose truth your getting. Is it the will of the church? God? Your pastor? The government? How do you know and are you even capable of knowing? There are many people who have followed cult leaders and would swear that they are following the correct path with more will than any of us have ever had. I am not so proud as to say that I am better than everyone that has ever followed a cult therefor I don't take anything so lightly that I take it on faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

This is a common misconception by religious people.
Human morals have been around long before the bible and every culture in the world regardless of religion has some sort of moral code and they are mostly similar.

---

Oh, I wouldn't come close to saying that. Moral values are dramatically different among the various cultures. Take for example the pagan habits of the Mia Indians and the Incas. These cultures were equivalent in technology to the Romans and they practice human sacrifice on a huge scale. As far as some of the western cultures are concerned, some continued human sacrifice until they were Christianized during the early history of the Church. Now is this “evolution of culture”?

Even still, we aren't discussing the evolution of culture, but life itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

The reason for this is evolution. People even before they were people found out that they had a much better chance at survival if they lived in groups. Once you start to live in groups social behavior starts to develop. Such as it wouldn't do us much good to live in groups if one member goes around and kills everyone because he loses the benefit of the group and his line dies off. Likewise if one member goes around and steals everything, the others are likely to kick him out of the group and he loses the group benefit and his genes die off. It's this group dynamic that molds humans to what they are today.

---

Are we discussing Chicago here? Have people in Chicago not benefited from Evolutionary Morals; there were more deaths related to crime in Chicago last year then deaths in the Iraq war. I suppose they are still evolving to the grade of the Iraqis' highly evolved civilization. Maybe if they lived in bigger groups in Chicago there wouldn't be so many shootings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Think of it this way if you found out today that this is your only life to live that after you die there is nothing would you not act exactly as you act today except for maybe treasuring your life a bit more. That's what I do because what is good for the group is good for me and my offspring even though on the surface it may seem counterproductive.

---

Without a God, what's the point – the strongest, fastest shooting, straightest shooter, meanest bad guy wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

If you need more evidence for this look at animal groups. You will see the larger and more social the group the more "moral" they are to their particular group. Humans live in the largest of groups of any great ape. Therefore we are the most moral as well.

---

Forgive me if I laugh at the fact that our secular government will allow the death of 50 million innocent children while you call it the most moral society. It seems you follow your Greek friend Epicurus; what feels good is good. What feels good is moral.

No, I don't buy “the superior” human approach.

Explain this, if human evolved into sentient, self-aware beings, why didn't frogs, toads, monkeys, tigers, or any other animal? Why only one particular species? Why is there only one “human-like” being on this planet. Been visited by any of the other kind from outer space yet? It would seem to me that if you could overcome the odds that mankind evolved by chance then all the others species would also become sentient self-aware beings – many of which, according to Darwinism, have existed millions of years before man. Why don't we have a great sea society of whales? Or sharks? Or Penguins?

JoeT

Thanks all for at last posting on the real issue of this topic, which was clearly described in the starting question.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

:)

.

.

Hi Cred. As you know I do believe in God, but to me it is a belief, a faith, not something that I can prove.

So, in answer to your question, I believe that the existence of God is completely belief and or faith related, as there is no actual evidence of the existence of God.

The things stated in the list that you provided are not in fact evidence of God, they are just evidence that the world still has many mysteries that we have yet to understand or comprehend.

That's my take on it anyway. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Hi Cred. As you know I do believe in God, but to me it is a belief, a faith, not something that I can prove.

---

For me you do not have to prove anything, Alt.
I respect anyone's belief, whatever it may be.

This topic refers to the position of certain people who CLAIM that incorrect and not replying to their questions (in this specific case about evolution) results in OSE for the existence of "God".

That is no longer a position of BELIEF and/or FAITH. It makes a wild claim that there is OSE for the existence of "God".
And that is what I oppose : you can not prove the existence of "God" by personal interpretations of queries and answers on these queries in an entire different field.

I do not claim that "God" exists or not exists.
This topic questions the position of a theist who claims that non-related issues are OSE for the existence of "God".

You are fully correct that belief in the existence of God is completely belief and or faith related, as there is no actual evidence for the existence of God.

And indeed : this "list" is just about mysteries we do not yet understand or comprehend.

Thanks for your reaction !

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Oh, I wouldn’t come close to saying that. Moral values are dramatically different among the various cultures. Take for example the pagan habits of the Mia Indians and the Incas. These cultures were equivalent in technology to the Romans and they practice human sacrifice on a huge scale. As far as some of the western cultures are concerned, some continued human sacrifice until they were Christianized during the early history of the Church. Now is this “evolution of culture”?

Even still, we aren’t discussing the evolution of culture, but life itself.

---

You mean the Incas killed people for ritual and sport. Like the Romans did with the gladiators and slaves or the Christians did with the American Indians or the Christians did with the Africans or the Christians did with the Muslims and the Christians did with the Jews and the Christians did with the catholics. All cultures have something not to be proud of even today. No creature is perfect humans are not an exception.

Quote:

---

Are we discussing Chicago here? Have people in Chicago not benefited from Evolutionary Morals; there were more deaths related to crime in Chicago last year then deaths in the Iraq war. I suppose they are still evolving to the grade of the Iraqis’ highly evolved civilization. Maybe if they lived in bigger groups in Chicago they wouldn’t be so many shootings?

---

A group doesn't necessarily mean the people around a person. Haven't you ever felt alone in a crowded room. Evolution has taught us to not kill others in our group it's up to society to teach how big that group is. Failure of society is also a driving force of evolution and groups of humans are not exempt from extinction if there actions are contrary to group survival.

Quote:

---

Without a God, what’s the point – the strongest, fastest shooting, straightest shooter, meanest bad guy wins.

---

The group of people that worked together got rid of the meanest guy and replaced him with people that were willing to work together. I don't care how strong or fast you are grouping is better for survival it's why so many animal do it.

Quote:

---

Forgive me if you I laugh at the fact that our secular government will allow the death of 50 million innocent children while you call it the most moral society. It seems you follow your Greek friend Epicurus; what feels good is good. What feels good is moral.

---

All societies have abortions. It was common place in many to leave newborns to die if the parents couldn't or didn't want to take care of them. The morality of abortion though would be a topic for another thread I think that we should leave this particular topic alone in this thread.

Quote:

---

No, I don’t buy “the superior” human approach.

Explain this, if human evolved into sentient, self-aware beings, why didn’t frogs, toads, monkeys, tigers, or any other animal? Why only one particular species? Why is there only one “human-like” being on this planet. Been visited by any of the other kind from outer space yet? It would seem to me that if you could overcome the odds that mankind evolved by chance then all the others species would also become sentient self-aware beings – many of which, according to Darwinism, have existed millions of years before man. Why don’t we have a great sea society of whales? Or sharks? Or Penguins?
JoeT

---

Who said humans are superior?

As far as us being the only sentient and self-aware beings. I don't agree with that. I think many animals are sentient and self-aware. Sometime I think my dog is more self-aware than many people.

Why we are the only human-like species? Well we out competed the others. There use to be many different kinds but they slowly died out. It points to that as for evolutionary success maybe humans aren't such a great design and lots can go wrong or it could point to that there is only so much room on earth for apex predators and something had to give. Who knows maybe we are like the dinosaurs and the humanoid design is on its way to extinction. I know there have been many times in the last 100,000 years or so that humans have come close to extinction.

Visitors from outer space? The galaxy is large maybe they haven't gotten to us yet. Maybe they have and they just decided to pass by us. Maybe the energy requirements are such that space travel out side a solar system isn't practical. Maybe we're the first intelligent species someone has to be why not us? Any number of reasons these are just few.

As far as why we don't have great societies of other animals. We do. Ants are far more successful than we are in that respect. You just need to change your measurements. You measure our greatness by our accomplishments. Evolution measures greatness by your ability to pass on your genes. Some early designs such as ants, jellyfish, sharks and horseshoe crabs are around today because they are good designs that allow them to pass on their genes. They are so good at what they do they have essentially stopped evolving. Humans are not the result of evolution we are simply one more creature in the path and only time will say whether this is a good design or not.

By the way I only use design because it sounds better than this particular evolution of this form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

JoeT,
I have had atheists argue about God's soveriegnty MORE than they argue He doesn't exist. I mostly think a lot just hate the fact that he is sovereign.

---

This is true. I think that the reason that so many atheists claim to believe that there is no God is that they have a grudge against God.

That is why Cred, for example, wanted everyone to example those examples of the evidence of God's existence, but when it turned out the wrong way, he wanted the discussion to stop.

It isn't so much that atheists do believe that there is no God. I think that is that they either hate God, or they hope that He does not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I don't think its hate. It's about people placing rationality, relativism, and naturalism above God's absolute will.

---

I partially disagree. Look at one atheist on this thread who said that he has no reason for his belief that there is no God. "Rational" means that there is a reason. Therefore that atheist was effectively saying that his belief that there is no God was not rational.

Likewise, note that Cred would not dare to discuss the evidence for God. If you have been around him for any length of time, you will know that there is no way to have a rational discussion over the evidence for God's existence with him. He just will not listen or discuss - no matter what evidence that there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Thanks all for at last posting on the real issue of this topic, which was clearly described in the starting question.

---

Breathing a sigh of relief that the discussion has moved away from the evidence for God?

Don't forget in the OP, you ASKED for a discussion on the evidence that I put forward and requested that evolutionists bring forward the answers. You said:

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

But evolutionists do not have answers to how these various things came to be. Don't forget, Cred, that when we were on the other board, that you and others agreed that there were only two options - these things were created naturally or by an intelligent designer/creator. Once the one possibility goes, one remains. No doubt you will deny it now, but it does not matter, because the lack of answers by atheists has been shown clearly in this thread.

When they couldn't, and when you could (once again), you wanted an end to the evidence that flooded this thread that atheists had no way to refute the evidence that there is a God! They could not even explain a simple question such as this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVING BELL SPIDER

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

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it funny how so many times over the years you have run away from the evidence for God! But Cred, what you don't know is that you can run, but no matter where you go, He is there. And when you finally come to the end of your life, you will have to deal with Him before the judgment throne.

You can run, but no matter where you go, you are never any further away from Him. Stop running Cred. Those who love truth do not need to fear truth.

Is there is a single atheist on here who can provide any OSE for their BELIEF that there is no God?

It is only fair that this question now be turned around the other way, now that the evidence for the existence for God has not been refuted.

Tj3, are you okay? Where did you prove God's existence? Did I miss it?

I read all the posts, none of them contain any OSE for the existence of God, so I don't understand how you think that this issue has been laid to rest.

If I missed something could you tell me which post this evidence is in?

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Tj3, are you okay? Where did you prove God's existence? Did I miss it?

I read all the posts, none of them contain any OSE for the existence of God, so I don't understand how you think that this issue has been laid to rest.

If I missed something could you tell me which post this evidence is in?

Thank you.

---

I don't know what you missed - it is right there and as you can see, many others found it. I grant you Cred has done his best to bury the evidence. I suggest that you go back to the start of the thread.

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

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

No, I suggest that you tell me the page and the post number, or is it simply not available?

I have no desire to read through 27 pages of posts again. If it wasn't there the first time, I'm sure that it isn't there now.

If you really have the evidence, then tell me where it is, after all, this is your proof, your OSE, one would think that you'd practically force me to read it, not make me find it on my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

No, I suggest that you tell me the page and the post number, or is it simply not available?

I have no desire to read through 27 pages of posts again. If it wasn't there the first time, I'm sure that it isn't there now.

If you really have the evidence, then tell me where it is, after all, this is your proof, your OSE, one would think that you'd practically force me to read it, not make me find it on my own.

---

Start at page 1 - that is where it starts - right with the first messages. It was the primary topic of this debate until Cred decided that things were going very much against what he hoped.

I have not intent to try to force anyone to read it. Heck, I did not even start the topic. Cred started it a couple of years ago on another board, and had toruble dealing with the result then. He started it again on this board, and then ended up beging people to get off the topic because it had gone entirely the wrong way as far as he was concerned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, because you don't know what caused DNA, or how it was formed, you automatically assume that it's existence proves that God is real?

That's not OSE, that's just deciding that because there's no other explanation then it has to be God.

Really, I'd love for that to be proof that I haven't been deluding myself all these years, that God does in fact exist, that it's not just a belief. If it was proof I'd be the first one to agree, but it isn't.

The fact is, we don't know how DNA was formed or what formed it. Maybe one day we will, but at this moment we do not. If you can one day prove without doubt that it was God's doing, then I'd be more than happy to accept that as fact.

Was there something else that I missed, or was that it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

So, because you don't know what caused DNA, or how it was formed, you automatically assume that it's existence proves that God is real?

---

I know how DNA was created. Is there a natural way in which it was created (not requiring a intelligent designer / creator)?

Quote:

---

That's not OSE, that's just deciding that because there's no other explanation then it has to be God.

---

When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

Now, as I pointed out to michaelb, we do not expect atheists to provide all the answers, but simple to show a way in which it is even possible for DNA to have come about naturally.

BTW, you may not think that it is OSE, but this approach is used as proof in science all the time. I wonder why people will accept something as scientific fact if proven this way as long as it has no direct connection with God, but reject it when it might demonstrate the reality of God.

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

I pointed out a natural way for all of your questions and you without any evidence to the contrary discounted it because you believe god did it.

Now I'll admit we don't have all of the details worked out but considering you don't even agree with evolution which is a fact. I don't know how you expect us to convince you of something that we still haven't figured out a theory for ourselves yet and as I have been saying for 27 pages now any of your questions that can't be answered only mean we lack knowledge in that particular subject. They by no means prove god. The only proof for god would be proof of the super natural. Once you prove the super natural you will have a much better chance at others believing in super natural events.

Quote:

---

When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

---

No, you have one option left. I never agreed to those terms.

Just because we don't understand everything in our world, that doesn't mean that God created it.

We don't have all the evidence for everything on this earth, and we don't have evidence of God either.

Maybe the spaghetti monster created everything, or maybe aliens did. Do you have proof that those claims aren't possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I know how DNA was created. is there a natural way in which it was created (not requiring a intelligent designer / creator)?



When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

Now, as I pointed out to michaelb, we do not expect atheists to provide all the answers, but simple to show a way in which it is even possible for DNA to have come about naturally.

BTW, you may not think that it is OSE, but this approach is used as proof in science all the time. I wonder why people will accept something as scientific fact if proven this way as long as it has no direct connection with God, but reject it when it might demonstrate the reality of God.

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

---

Assuming you could understand it, at least the author of this site applies some very serious science and reasoning in his attempt to map the Evolution of DNA: Evolution of DNA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

When this discussion started a couple of years ago on another board, Cred under his name at the time (he was suspended many many times and changed names frequently) agreed that creation either was an act of God or occurred naturally (i.e. by evolution). Thus, if it is impossible for creation to have come about naturally, then you have but one option left.

---

I can think of hundreds of ways life came about, each equally implausable as the next, and as equally unsupported by evidence as the next. Just because your one is written down in a book doesn't mean it's more likely and should be given more weight.

There are a few ways that do look likely according to the evidence we have, and it's these that we are focusing in on in order to explain how life came about. (PS. None of them are evolution, it doesn't explain "creation", and I doubt that cred said so)

I heard a quote somewhere I think by a Catholic priest and it went something like this:

"Science attempts to explain the how life occurred, and Religion attempts to explain why life occurred."

I think the two can co-exist; but there are some who choose the bible as the only authority on the how, and the why. I was given a brain to reason, the truth is the truth and to me my truth it is evident through my experiences and reasoning which admittedly is ever evolving, but to me it is unthinkable to merely accept the canned truth from a single source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I pointed out a natural way for all of your questions and you without any evidence to the contrary discounted it because you believe god did it.

---

You obviously did not read bthe rbuttals. The rebuttals all had to do with issues about whether the suggested approach was possible. Not once did not mention God as a reason.You seem fixated on that. I said and have held to it, that would be willing to deal with the issue solely from a scientific perspective, but oddly, the atheists on here appear unwilling to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

No, you have one option left. I never agreed to those terms.

---

And I never asked you too. Cred brought over a discussion which had ended about a year ago on another site where all involved did agree (as you will see in the OP).

I am quite willing to look at alternatives - what alternative would you like to add into the mix?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I can think of hundreds of ways life came about, each equally implausable as the next, and as equally unsupported by evidence as the next.

---

Then let's look at any one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

Assuming you could understand it, at least the author of this site applies some very serious science and reasoning in his attempt to map the Evolution of DNA: Evolution of DNA

---

I see very little in this article that explains how the DNA programming came to be. He does speak about the mutations in the code, but of course that requires that code already exists.

I canned other parts of the site but it seems to me that he is basing a lot of the theory that we already discussed earlier in this thread. Further, if you think that I am goingh to read an entire website to find out what you think that the answer is, that is not going to happen. If you think that there are key details, then give us your proposal in summary form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Then let's look at any one of them.

---

1. Extraterretials planted life here
2. The life in cells always existed, they found a good host on Earth and became more complex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

1. Extraterretials planted life here
2. The life in cells always existed, they found a good host on Earth and became more complex

---

1) Where did the extraterrestraisl come from? How did they come to be?
2) How did the increasing complexity happen?

TJ3,

Your entire rebuttal consisted of

Quote:

---

You have not even provided a feasible hypothesis yet.

---

No where did you prove that chemicals can't self replicate.
No where did you prove that lipid bubbles can't form.
No where did you prove that Nucleotides in lipid bubbles don't grow faster.
No where did you prove that self replicating chemicals in lipid bubbles don't copy with diversity.
No where did you prove that these chemicals weren't on earth at the time.
No where did you prove that monomers can't become polymers.
No where did you prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

And I never asked you too. Cred brought over a discussion which had ended about a year ago on another site where all involved did agree (as you will see in the OP).

I am quite willing to look at alternatives - what alternative would you like to add into the mix?

---

I don't have any alternatives to add, I'm not a scientist, an evolutionist, any kind of "ist", but that doesn't mean that I automatically say that God did it because there isn't any other explanation.

You are just choosing God because you don't believe it was science. The fact is that no one can prove how DNA came to be, you cannot default to God just because an explanation hasn't been found yet.

Like I said, it's just as likely that aliens or the spaghetti monster had a hand in it, we don't have any proof of them either.

If you want to accept DNA as proof of God's existence, well, I can't stop you from believing that, but do not claim that it is OSE for God's existence, because it really isn't.

Remember, I do believe in God too, but obviously I don't believe in the same God as you. Did God have a hand in creating the world? I believe he did, but not to the extent that you do. My belief is that he got the ball rolling, but the rest just followed. In other words, I think God and science are the creators of this earth we live in, but it's just belief, not fact, and I'm fine with that.

Please read the header of this topic :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Once more I have to ask you : DO NOT REPLY to Tj3's continuing attempt to force this thread off-topic towards his "list" of evolution queries, while the topic used this list only to illustrate the faulty argument Tj3 used to "prove" the existence of "God".

Note also that TJ3 never provided any OSE for the existence of "God".
Note that TJ3 tries everything to go off-topic here, because he knows his arguments fail completely.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

I repeat :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

There is no OSE for the existence of "God". I do not expect there ever will be any OSE for the existence of "God".
You can BELIEVE in "God" , you can have FAITH in "God" . But you can not provide OSE for the existence of "God", because there is no such OSE.

The existence of "God" can only be "proved" by OSE for the existence of "God". Not with subjective reasoning.

And no query, no question, no reply - faulty or not - on one issue can provide OSE for a completely different issue , in this specific case in the claimed existence of "God".

.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

.

Sorry Cred, I didn't realize that I was going off topic, I just followed Tj3's lead and before I knew it, wham, we strayed.

I'll let you get back to your thread, just wanted to say I'm sorry. If you'd like me to remove my posts I will, let me know. :)

Dear Alty :

No need to say sorry. No problem . I know you reacted to earlier posts.

I intend to repeat my previous message every time from now anyone here is posting about evolution instead of about the real topic : OSE for "God's" existence.

This topic is CLEARLY about the existence of "God", not about the evolution queries from Tj3's list.

Even after repeated requests Tj3 refuses to drop the evolution issue, and goes OFF-TOPIC from the real issue. The reason is clear: Tj3 knows there is no OSE for the existence of "God". Every next time Tj3 goes off-topic here again I will report him for that.

All one can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in "God". But no queries (evolution or other) and replies to such queries can provide OSE for the existence of "God"?

:)

.

.