Below I repost a list by Tom, one of the posters on this board who argued that this list shows proof for "God's" existence. Although I am tolerant towards any belief a person can have, I draw a clear line between what a person BELIEVES and what is covered by OSE.

Another point is that support queries for one specific view do not mean that - even without any OSE for another view - that other view is automatically "factual". Each claim has to be OSE proved on it's own merits.

I have a link to another Q&A board to show that this list is a "true" copy, but I am not allowed to post that link here. If you want the URL PM me, and I will forward you the link.

Here is Toms list of claims :

"Blindness is no excuse".

As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

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

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

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

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

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

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but canniot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.

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

"For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God". Again : who decides if there was no natural answer? Even if at this moment we do not know such answer, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted".
There is a saying : A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer ....

A list on evolution queries is no OSE for "God's" existence. Why not post direct OSE for "God's" existence? The answer is simple : because such evidence does not exist. You can only BELIEVE in "God's" existence.

Whatever you can post on queries on whatever subject, it will never be OSE for "God's" existence. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be.

Any comments ?

:)

.

.

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here. There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here. There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!

---

The article gives a very simplistic view, ignoring even something as simple as the fact that unless the lens and associated nerves and muscles all developed simultaneously, they would all be less than useless - a less than perfect lens would inhibit the ability to see and would thus not create something more fit, but rather something less fit.

BTW, I should take this opportunity to note that "Pericles" in the OP is a prior userid for Cred. Prior to this, as stated, there was consensus that there were two option - either natural evolution or creation by God. No one was able to put forward any third option. After these were posted many many times, "pericles" kept saying that he could not see the postings, and no one could offer a feasible explanation which did not require an intelligent designer. In fact, except for one of these examples, no one was even able to come up with any possible explanation at all.

Cred likes to call this a list. It never was a list. This is simply a compilation of a few of the examples which were posted on the other site which the evolutionist were unable to address.

First of all, everyone should agree that by "God" what is meant is GodAlmighty of the Bible in order to avoid confusion.

OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

First of all, everyone should agree that by "God" what is meant is GodAlmighty of the Bible in order to avoid confusion.

OK?

---

For the sake of keeping this entirely objective, I am quite satisfied to leave it at an intelligent designer. Who that designer is can be left to be determined.

By the way. The God of the Bible is "Almighty God".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

For the sake of keeping this entirely objective, I am quite satisfied to leave it at an intelligent designer. Who that designer is can be left to be determined.

By the way. the God of the Bible is "Almighty God".

---

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

Everyone will be talking about a different "God"... you have to be specific... that would be the GodAlmighty of the Bible since those engaging in the conversation will overwhelmingly be Christians, with a few Jews and Muslims.

There are other concepts of "God" held by many, such as Einstein, that have nothing to do with a personal god, like GodAlmighty, so that huge difference must be made or this conversation is worthless. Many people have their own concept of "God" that they make up that has no likeness to the Biblical GodAlmighty. That too must be omitted.

No reason to talk and be talking about two different things altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Everyone will be talking about a different "God".... you have to be specific....that would be the GodAlmighty of the Bible since those engaging in the conversation will overwhelmingly be Christians, with a few Jews and Muslims.

There are other concepts of "God" held by many, such as Einstein, that have nothing to do with a personal god, like GodAlmighty, so that huge difference must be made or this conversation is worthless. Many people have their own concept of "God" that they make up that has no likeness to the Biblical GodAlmighty. That too must be omitted.

No reason to talk and be talking about two different things altogether.

---

We don't have to talk about God at all at this point - we can just discuss an intelligent designer. All I have to show is that any one of these could not have occurred naturally.

Now instead of trying to argue a side issue, why don't you address the question at hand - provide a feasible manner in which any of those examples could have occurred naturally with an intelligent designer.

Sorry, you can't have it several different definitions in a serious discussion. That's nonsense.

Since you are a well-known apologist for Christianity on different Q&A Sites, we will use *YOUR GOD* for purposes of discussion and so that the less educated folks here can follow the discussion if they wish.

OK, your god, GodAlmighty is the intelligent designer. That is the definition of God for the purposes of this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Sorry, you can't have it several different definitions in a serious discussion. That's nonsense.

Since you are a well-known apologist for Christianity on different Q&A Sites, we will use *YOUR GOD* for purposes of discussion and so that the less educated folks here can follow the discussion if they wish.

OK, your god, GodAlmighty is the intelligent designer. That is the definition of God for the purposes of this discussion.

---

You seem to have missed the point of the question. The question is whether there is any way that these examples could occur naturally. And so far no one has come forward with a feasible suggestion. But - whatever you like - if you want to support the one and only true God,then your endorsement of the God of the Bible is noted.

Now I am looking forward to you providing a feasible explanation for any of the examples.

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY: I know that humans can only see in 4 dimensions Red, Green, Blue, and Luminosity [Light]. Some creatures can see in more than those 4 dimensions. Chickens for example can see in 12 dimensions, bees see in ultraviolet. It is possible that the turkey can see the infrared signature of its compost, and it adjusts and/or lays eggs once it “looks” right. This of course jumps back to the evolution of the eye. The turkey may also be sensitive to bacteria, which incubate at a preset temperature in the compost.

I would like to add to the above that "God" which in my sense means the entity credited with the creation of the universe. Is scientifically unproven, we cannot reproduce God consistently in a lab nor can we contact God at our whim to clear up the matter. So we cannot say for certain that god is/isn't responsible as we have no proven alternative for either case.

However, I think we should be asking at which level is God responsible. Hypothetically, if the turkey's evolved eye lets it see when its heap is "ripe", and you've solved the evolution of the turkey's eye. What of the atoms of the eye, how were they created?

Science tells us atoms[matter] cannot be created, only turned into energy, and since we can throw reversing entropy out of the window, how was the universe's matter created... We don't know. Creation of matter is beyond human understanding, however God is as well. Therefore, we can't say "for certain" that unexplained natural events are automatically in God's territory.

However as we are intelligent beings, considering all that we can do. It is not too difficult to imagine that at some level, some hyper-intelligent entity knows the secrets of the universe and may be responsible for all that we have. On the other hand, that raises the question of its[entity] origin.

It is a can't win argument for all parties involved. As neither side has definitive proof to support their claims. Scientists cannot prove that matter the basic building block of out universe can be created by natural reproducible means. The devout cannot prove that God has a natural manifestation and can affect the laws of the universe. Of course if God were to show up we could solve this argument immediately :]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viloen

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY: I know that humans can only see in 4 dimensions Red, Green, Blue, and Luminosity [Light].

---

These are not dimensions. Red, green and blue are simply parts of the EM spectrum.

Quote:

---

Some creatures can see in more than those 4 dimensions. Chickens for example can see in 12 dimensions, bees see in ultraviolet.

---

Once again, if your sources (which you do not give) tell you that chickens can see in 12 dimensions, I would question the validity of those sources. It is true that some animals have a different spectral range than others, but what has that to do with the issue at hand?

Quote:

---

It is possible that the turkey can see the infrared signature of its compost, and it adjusts and/or lays eggs once it “looks” right.

---

And once again, how would it have that knowledge, the knowledge as to the fact that they should first build a compost heap because that will produce the desired heat, to wait and check back on the compost heap, and then what the right temperature is, and how to equate infrared light (assuming that they can even see it, which so far is only an assumption on your part) to know whether that frequency/intensity of light indicates the right temperature.

I would suggest that your suggestion may actually further complicate the issue, but at very least, you are dealing entirely on assumptions from a questionable source.

Quote:

---

This of course jumps back to the evolution of the eye. The turkey may also be sensitive to bacteria, which incubate at a preset temperature in the compost.

---

Then that raises questions as to how they know that bacteria is related to the generation of heat, to the degree that they decide to build compost heaps containing that bacteria. Where does that knowledge come from?

[QUOTE=Tj3]The article gives a very simplistic view, ignoring even something as simple as the fact that unless the lens and associated nerves and muscles all developed simultaneously, they would all be less than useless - a less than perfect lens would inhibit the ability to see and would thus not create something more fit, but rather something less fit.[\QUOTE]

A less than perfect lens certainly does not inhibit the ability to see. Also, some creatures do fine with an eye without lenses. You can get a very good image with just an aperture.

This tom guy is right! Evolutions is not only improbable, it is impossible.

Tom, since *you are afraid* to have your very own definition of "God"(GodAlmighty of the Bible) for this discussion, I'm not interested in participating in one ofy your exercises in *double talk*.

Have a good week! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

This tom guy is right! Evolutions is not only improbable, it is impossible.

---

You go girl!
Here is wildandblue's contribution: you know how in Genesis Abraham is supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, but then he finds a ram caught by it's horns in the brush and God directs him to use that instead? Events which happened I think 5000 years ago. OK now today wildandblue is still pulling rams out of bushes, he's given up deerhunting since ram pulling is so much easier but I digress... The POINT being how long is this evolution crap supposed to take? 5000 years and sheep are no smarter now than they were then? How does this show survival of the fittest for instance?
Cred, I also suggest the fact that the presence of the observer changes the very thing he intends to observe, and since this God is omniscient there is no way to avoid Him knowing you are observing.
Also my thought that objective is actually a lot of little subjectives, and doesn't really exist either independently of them
Anyway I have to go, a ram is arguing with one of the knots in the woodgrain on our telephone pole, I have to explain again that the pole is not picking a fight with him. SIGH
As well as my thought that objective is only a very large number of subjectives and so doesn't actually exist either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Tom, since *you are afraid* to have your very own definition of "God"(GodAlmighty of the Bible) for this discussion, I'm not interested in participating in one ofy your exercises in *double talk*.

Have a good week! :)

---

I am not afraid at all. I am more than willing to let the evidence speak for itself. That is why I am willing to allow this question to be determined on purely objective grounds.

I am sorry to see that your approach is the same as it was on the previous site where we discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

These are not dimensions. Red, green and blue are simply parts of the EM spectrum.



Once again, if your sources (which you do not give) tell you that chickens can see in 12 dimensions, I would question the validity of those sources. It is true that some animals have a different spectral range than others, but what has that to do with the issue at hand?



And once again, how would it have that knowledge, the knowledge as to the fact that they should first build a compost heap because that will produce the desired heat, to wait and check back on the compost heap, and then what the right temperature is, and how to equate infrared light (assuming that they can even see it, which so far is only an assumption on your part) to know whether that frequency/intensity of light indicates the right temperature.

I would suggest that your suggestion may actually further complicate the issue, but at very least, you are dealing entirely on assumptions from a questionable source.



Then that raises questions as to how they know that bacteria is related to the generation of heat, to the degree that they decide to build compost heaps containing that bacteria. Where does that knowledge come from?

---

You didn't read the second post it continued on based from the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

The article gives a very simplistic view, ignoring even something as simple as the fact that unless the lens and associated nerves and muscles all developed simultaneously, they would all be less than useless - a less than perfect lens would inhibit the ability to see and would thus not create something more fit, but rather something less fit.

---

A less than perfect lens certainly does not inhibit the ability to see. Also, some creatures do fine with an eye without lenses. You can get a very good image with just an aperture.

---

Actually, a less than perfect lens does inhibit sight. You might see light or fuzzy images but nothing else. You are proposing possible designs (i.e. apertures) which require intelligence to design, but you still have not told us how such a structure might evolve.

That is the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viloen

You didnt read the second post it continued on based from the first.

---

I did. But I did not see how it overcame the problems that I raised to your first post. It seems that you were essentially working on a possible design as to how the animal could accomplish this feat - but that in an of itself defeats your argument because that requires intelligence. You have not told us how this could come to be through natural evolution.

Before we move on to the source of the intelligence, we must fist review the evidence for this intelligence (which was the point of the original question), and then we can look at the attributes of this creative intelligence, and thus determine who He is rather than going by one persons person opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildandblue

You go girl!
Here is wildandblue's contribution: you know how in Genesis Abraham is supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, but then he finds a ram caught by it's horns in the brush and God directs him to use that instead? Events which happened I think 5000 years ago. OK now today wildandblue is still pulling rams out of bushes, he's given up deerhunting since ram pulling is so much easier but I digress...The POINT being how long is this evolution crap supposed to take? 5000 years and sheep are no smarter now than they were then? How does this show survival of the fittest for instance?
Cred, I also suggest the fact that the presence of the observer changes the very thing he intends to observe, and since this God is omniscient there is no way to avoid Him knowing you are observing.
Also my thought that objective is actually a lot of little subjectives, and doesn't really exist either independently of them
Anyway I have to go, a ram is arguing with one of the knots in the woodgrain on our telephone pole, I have to explain again that the pole is not picking a fight with him. SIGH
As well as my thought that objective is only a very large number of subjectives and so doesn't actually exist either.

---

Evolution typically takes far more time than 5000 years. However radical changes in species can happen faster. Look at the how corn was genetically engineered[selectively breeded] by the ancients They took the plants they thought were better and made sure thet mated over time we get corn. If you see the plant they started with, and what we have as corn today they are completely different you'd consider them to be two different plants... you might even say that god created two different species but that would be false it was created by man. Evolution works in the same way, it's selective breeding which stems from survival of the fittest over vasts amounts of time. Only instead of man being the changing factor, nature is, maybe God is.

Secondly the sheep haven't had the evolutionary pressure to get smarter over the last 5000 years. i.e. brains weren't pertinent to their survival.

Hopes this clear this up a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viloen

Evolution typically takes far more time than 5000 years. However radical changes in species can happen faster. Look at the how corn was genetically engineered[selectively breeded] by the ancients They took the plants they thought were better and made sure thet mated over time we get corn. If you see the plant they started out with, and what we have as corn today they are completely different you'd consider them to be two different plants...

---

It is still the same thing - it is still corn. But note, even for the changes that you are discussing, a intelligent intervention was required. And most importantly, where did the corn come from originally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is still the same thing - it is still corn. But note, even for the changes that you are discussing, a intelligent intervention was required. And most importantly, where did the corn come from originally?

---

The original plant it came from is nothing like corn we have today. The point is, nature uses the same processes albeit much slower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viloen

The original plant it came from is nothing like corn we have today. The point is, nature uses the same processes albeit much slower.

---

Really? Please provide your evidence and the link to the DNA analysis showing that it is no longer corn.

Second, please get back on topic and show us how the corn evolved from non-living matter.

Just a note to keep us on track. There are a number of examples which demonstrate evidence of an intelligent creator.

The challenge is for anyone to provide a feasible proposal as to how these may have evolved naturally.

If life is to complex to evolve on it's own isn't your god arguably more complex. So if you believe god can be on his own, then life from non life shouldn't be that hard since you already believe that nothingness created your god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

If life is to complex to evolve on it's own isn't your god arguably more complex. So if you believe god can be on his own, then life from non life shouldn't be that hard since you already believe that nothingness created your god.

---

God wasn't created.

Please stay on topic. If you want to start a thread regarding your views on God, that okay, but this thread is examining whether any feaible proposal can be put forward on how any of these examples could possibly come into existence naturally. It sounds to me like you are saying that you do not have anything to offer in regards to the topic.

My sheep are also so dumb that they get their teeth stuck in their wool while using it for dental floss, and walk around with their heads at a funny angle until they are freed. It's like this I have wool business is totally a new experience for them. And, being this dumb, in an animal that typically lives 6 to 8 years, they would have statistically died out a lot quicker than any supposed evolution could have allowed them to survive and succeed, if say 5000 years is not sufficient time for us to have obtained a significant difference in their populations.

Quote:

---

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

---

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To easy.

Quote:

---

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?

---

There are simpler forms of DNA. Did you know that there are things that are considered alive that have DNA even non living replicators that have DNA. Your missing minor infintessimal steps that build complexity over time to deal with environmental pressures.

Quote:

---

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

---

We are not exactly sure yet, but just because we don't know the exact way something came to be doesn't mean god did it but I'll concede that we don't know yet. Its okay though I'm a big enough of a person to say there are things that aren't know to man yet. Unlike the religions who when ever they don't know something claim god did it. Another thing to remember about this is that bacteria which is generally regarded as a simple cell isn't simple. The first cells are believed to be much simpler than anything is alive today because they wouldn't have had to compete with anyone for resources

Quote:

---

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

---

Pond scum can be life but it also refers to many non living items as well. But the chance that modern pond scum would create the simplest life form is unlikely because it does already contain life that would out compete any simple form of life out of resources.

Quote:

---

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY

---

What came first the turkey or the egg? The natural solution for this is that the turkey's nest building developed slowly as did the turkey's eggs need for exact temperatures. Turkey's that were better at building nests produced more offspring. The turkey doesn't need to understand anything it just knows that in order to survive it needs to build a better nest than the other guy. Natural solution makes perfect sense with a little education on how evolution works.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Why does a flawed design prove a perfect designer? If someone was designing it why add the extra step? If you want something to be a food source for a particular animal only make the one animal just naturally able to eat it.
The natural reason however is more than likely due to the birds ancestry. Ancient birds use to swallow rocks to break down the food they ate. If the rocks they were swallowing were covered in mud(like they would be in a river bed which is the best place to get rocks in a forest) they would have also been getting the ability to eat those seeds without knowing it. As they moved towards flight and no longer needed the stones they kept eating the mud that allowed them to exploit a resource other animals could not.

Quote:

---

God wasn't created.

---

If you can handle the idea that the most complex thing ever dreamed of came to be without creation. Why is it so hard to believe that these relatively simple things came about without creation but through environmental pressures just as lakes and rivers have complex shapes due to the pressure of the water. Life formed and became more complex on the pressure the environment placed on simple replicating chains of chemicals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildandblue

My sheep are also so dumb that they get their teeth stuck in their wool while using it for dental floss, and walk around with their heads at a funny angle until they are freed. It's like this I have wool business is totally a new experience for them. And, being this dumb, in an animal that typically lives 6 to 8 years, they would have statistically died out a lot quicker than any supposed evolution could have allowed them to survive and succeed, if say 5000 years is not sufficient time for us to have obtained a significant difference in their populations.

---

Evolutions can occur fairly quickly if the original sample size is large and the selection is small. For example if I have a flock of sheep say 1000 and of those 1000 I only allow the 50 with the best wool to breed to make the next 1000. If I do this for say 10 generations. If I did it correctly on average my last generation of sheep will have better wool than the first generation I started with. The reason your sheep are dumb is because they don't need intellect to produce better wool so your forefathers didn't select the smart ones they picked the ones with the better wool. If you were to kill the ones that got their teeth stuck in there wool give it a few generations and you won't have that problem anymore however you might loose a more desirable trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To easy.

---

Really? Well, I won't try to expose all the problems with what they say, but let me just explain a simple matter of the eye for you. A photosensitive spot, which is how they suggest that it started is no more complex than a very sensitive nerve. Vision is far more complex. Here is a diagram of the chemical processes:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/bio.gif

Since the person or animal is blind is ANY one of these processes does not exist - how did these processes evolve from that photosensitive spot?

Quote:

---

There are simpler forms of DNA. Did you know that there are things that are considered alive that have DNA even non living replicators that have DNA. Your missing minor infintessimal steps that build complexity over time to deal with environmental pressures.

---

So you have no answer regarding DNA.

Quote:

---

We are not exactly sure yet, but just because we don't know the exact way something came to be doesn't mean god did it but I'll concede that we don't know yet. Its okay though I'm a big enough of a person to say there are things that aren't know to man yet. Unlike the religions who when ever they don't know something claim god did it. Another thing to remember about this is that bacteria which is generally regarded as a simple cell isn't simple. The first cells are believed to be much simpler than anything is alive today because they wouldn't have had to compete with anyone for resources

---

Again you have no answer.

Quote:

---

Pond scum can be life but it also refers to many non living items as well. But the chance that modern pond scum would create the simplest life form is unlikely because it does already contain life that would out compete any simple form of life out of resources.

---

Pond scum by definition is alive. But nonetheless since you admit that some forms of pond scum are alive, once again I note that you have no answer as to how it came to be.

Quote:

---

What came first the turkey or the egg? The natural solution for this is that the turkey's nest building developed slowly as did the turkey's eggs need for exact temperatures. Turkey's that were better at building nests produced more offspring. The turkey doesn't need to understand anything it just knows that in order to survive it needs to build a better nest than the other guy. Natural solution makes perfect sense with a little education on how evolution works.

---

The eggs will dies unless incubated at the perfect temperature. The second generation of turkeys would never exist unless they got it right the first time. Some things you don't get a second chance to learn. And you appear to be suggesting that one generation of birds teaches the next.

Quote:

---

Why does a flawed design prove a perfect designer?

---

Who said that it was a flawed design? I thought that you believed in survival of the fittest - how did the birds survive if it is not a good design?

As an engineer, I can tell you that some things that those who do not understand engineering may think is "flawed" proves to be a good design, and unless you perfectly understand every aspect of a design, you cannot make a judgment call such as that. So why not just address the question at hand - how would this evolve naturally?

Quote:

---

The natural reason however is more than likely due to the birds ancestry. Ancient birds use to swallow rocks to break down the food they ate. If the rocks they were swallowing were covered in mud(like they would be in a river bed which is the best place to get rocks in a forest) they would have also been getting the ability to eat those seeds without knowing it.

---

A lot of "if's" there, but it does not answer the question, because these birds choose to eat the poisonous seeds. If your argument was right, then why would they not eat a mix of poisonous and non-poisonous plants, like goats do? Why would they simply eat two things - the poisonous seeds and the antidote for the poison?

Quote:

---

As they moved towards flight and no longer needed the stones they kept eating the mud that allowed them to exploit a resource other animals could not.

---

You are assuming intelligence here - assuming that after they no longer needed stones, and thus exposure to the mud, they chose to keep eating mud in order to exploit a resource that others could not.

You defeated your own argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here. There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!

---

Quote:

---

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but

---

A bunch of ifs offered up as an explanation?


First paragraph - then goes on to list examples of different "eyes"

But never actually explains how an eye came to be.

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

If god has always been.
If god is perfect.
IF god exists
If god inspired the bible
If god is all powerful
If god doesn't have an end
If god is beyond our reasoning
If god is not responsible for evil
If god created the earth 6000 years ago
If god created the macaw
If god created fossils
If god created the eye
If god created thumbs
If god created poisons
If god...
I could go on but I think you get my point well actually I know you don't get my point but I've reached the point at which others will get my point and I know no matter how many ifs I give you for your theory it doesn't matter because you will always fall back on god did it and never pursue real knowledge instead resting on the false knowledge of god did it and the reason I say it's false knowledge is because god did it has never been the correct answer we have never found a question that has been proven that the answer is god did it and I even think you will agree with me that we will never find scientific prove of god. There for if it is a scientific question the answer can't be god did it.

But your reply assumes sheep which somehow evolved naturally lived long enough for people to domesticate them and then start selecting for certain traits. And I can select for fleece characteristics in one generation since it is a highly heritable trait. How exactly does an animal that is dumb as a brick, gets its head stuck while arguing with a bush that reached out and scratched him as he walked by, or gets its teeth stuck while scratching its back, both of them would starve to death if someone didn't realize their predicament and rescue them. Isn't survival of the fittest supposed to mean they get basically smarter or hardier as the population evolves? The only way these could make it, or any newborn animal makes it, is that Somebody loves them and cares about them all. God is love, after all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

---

I am not asking what you know - I am simply asking if there is any feasible way that these could have occurred, other than by creation.

If you wish to start a thread to discuss the truth and reality of God, then do so. This is examining the feasibility of the claims regarding evolution with respect to these specific examples.

Quote:

---

I am not asking what you know - I am simply asking if there is any feasible way that these could have occurred, other than by creation.

---

And I said there is and gave examples of how they feasibly could have happened although I admit that we don't have all of the answers yet.

Quote:

---

Isn't survival of the fittest supposed to mean they get basically smarter or hardier as the population evolves?

---

This is a common misconception. Survival of the fittest really means breeding of the fittest. What makes the animal more or less likely to breed depends on the environment. In the case of sheep since humans(humans are part of the environment) are there to assist them and make sure the dumb ones survive and breed. Intellect doesn't make them more fit for the current environment. Better wool, better meat makes them more likely to breed than intellect. Which is why they are dumb but have good meat and wool. Evolution (survival of the fittest) doesn't account for things that would make the animal species survive long term it only looks at what is giving the animal an advantage right now. This lack of long term planning is why 98% of species are currently extinct and the miserable fail rate of species points to a natural process instead of a designed one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

And I said there is and gave examples of how they feasibly could have happened although I admit that we don't have all of the answers yet.

---

I disagree that they were feasible and provided reasons.

And no one is saying that you need to have all the answers - the point is that if there is no feasible way in which something might have happened, then it could not have happened that way. That is the point. You do not need to have all, or any of the answers to show that something is feasible.

Your standards for feasiblity are too high when it comes to natural solutions and too low when it comes to supernatural solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your standards for feasiblity are too high when it comes to natural solutions and too low when it comes to supernatural solutions.

---

Too high? If you saw a Lambourghini in a field, would you accept the argument that it came about naturally even though no one could come up with any feasible way that it could? Would you argue that we set our standards too high?

The reality is that the complexity of a Lambourghini pales in comparison to the complexity of the simplest single cell.