[michealb]

Your biggest argument against the feasibility of the idea I presented was against evolution and as I stated evolution is a fact. Just because you choose to ignore facts is meaning less. All evidence that has ever been uncovered supports evolution and the experiment I pointed out shows that new information can be added to the genetic code through evolution. Which disproves all questions about evolution and all most all scientists agree. Now if you can point out something to the contrary I'll listen but I'm sure you can't because the greatest minds for the last 150 years have been trying to disprove evolution and haven't found any evidence to the contrary so forgive me if I say it's highly unlikely that you have any.

[Tj3]

Your biggest argument against the feasibility of the idea I presented was against evolution

No, not at all. There were numerous issues raised. I did not use evolution as an argument anywhere in my rebuttal.

And as I stated evolution is a fact.

Which is true for micro-evolution, but not true for macro-evolution. You cannot simply declare something as a fact and then tell everyone that they must accept it. That is not how either logic or science works.

Just because you choose to ignore facts is meaning less.

I ignore unvalidated claims.

All evidence that has ever been uncovered supports evolution

Even most evolutionists would not make that claim. Darwin himself did not agree. And yet you demand that we accept it simply because you believe it to be true.

and the experiment I pointed out shows that new information can be added to the genetic code through evolution. Which disproves all questions about evolution and all most all scientists agree.

Though interesting, it does not change anything with respect to macro-evolution. I don't know why you think that it does. Even the article made no such claim.

Now if you can point out something to the contrary I'll listen but I'm sure you can't because the greatest minds for the last 150 years have been trying to disprove evolution and haven't found any evidence to the contrary so forgive me if I say it's highly unlikely that you have any.

Please, let's stay in the real world, shall we?

Now look, if you are not prepared to deal with the issues that are raised and are simply going to demand that we believe you because you say so (which BTW is another defined logic fallacy), then we are not going to get anywhere. I committed myself to stay within the bounds of what can be shown by science to be feasible - why won't you?

[michealb]

No, not at all. There were numerous issues raised. I did not use evolution as an argument anywhere in my rebuttal.

"You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time."
This statement no matter how you spin it is trying to dispute evolution.

Which is true for micro-evolution, but not true for macro-evolution. You cannot simply declare something as a fact and then tell everyone that they must accept it. That is not how either logic or science works.

Yes millions of scientist around the globe simply claim evolution as fact with no logic or evidence to back it up it's a world wide conspiracy to cover up the fact that god created everything as it is and I'm the president of that conspiracy you found us out...
Give me a break. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. So much so that it would it is ridiculous to even debate the fact anymore.

I ignore unvalidated claims.

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

Even most evolutionists would not make that claim. Darwin himself did not agree. And yet you demand that we accept it simply because you believe it to be true.

Really find me one. Find me one piece of solid evidence that goes against evolution theory and one evolutionist who feels that evolution doesn't follow all the known facts.

I'm actually surprised you would even try and say this considering what a scientific theory is. If any evidence was contrary to evolution theory it would go back to being a hypothesis or the theory would be changed to incorporate this new information.

Though interesting, it does not change anything with respect to macro-evolution. I don't know why you think that it does. Even the article made no such claim.

Read the papers that go along with the actual experiment. In the experiment Ecoli evolved the ability to process citrate. Which one of the defining quality of Ecoli is its inability to process citrate. This ability was not in the genetic code of the Ecoli before hand.

Please, let's stay in the real world, shall we?

Now look, if you are not prepared to deal with the issues that are raised and are simply going to demand that we believe you because you say so (which BTW is another defined logic fallacy), then we are not going to get anywhere. I committed myself to stay within the bounds of what can be shown by science to be feasible - why won't you?

I'm not asking you to realize these facts because I say so but because they have been proven over the last 150 years. Every new discover has only enforced that evolution is fact.

Let me repeat this just to be clear.

There has never been any evidence found contrary to modern evolution theory.

[Tj3]

"You need to be able to tell me, step by step how these complex processes build over time."
This statement no matter how you spin it is trying to dispute evolution.

I am not disputing evolution. I am looking at the details of the approach that you are proposing. If you have an alternate to evolution, then put forward the proposal. If you wish to proposal evolution, I am more than willing to look at the details rather than rejecting it because it is evolution.

Now, please, stop complaining about what you think might happen, and just post the proposal - assuming of course that you ever actually intend to do so. You are wasting your time and mine with ths stream of strawman arguments.

Yes millions of scientist around the globe simply claim evolution as fact with no logic or evidence to back it up it's a world wide conspiracy to cover up the fact that god created everything as it is and I'm the president of that conspiracy you found us out...

I do not dispute the reality of evolution. It is macroevolution which is currently in dispute.

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

You brought religion into it. I said that I was willing to look at this from a purely scientific basis.

Really find me one. Find me one piece of solid evidence that goes against evolution theory and one evolutionist who feels that evolution doesn't follow all the known facts.

Start a thread on macroevolution if you wish - that is not the topic of this thread.

I'm actually surprised you would even try and say this considering what a scientific theory is.

Then you should study up on the topic a bit more.

Read the papers that go along with the actual experiment. In the experiment Ecoli evolved the ability to process citrate. Which one of the defining quality of Ecoli is its inability to process citrate. This ability was not in the genetic code of the Ecoli before hand.

You clearly did not read what I said.

I'm not asking you to realize these facts because I say so but because they have been proven over the last 150 years. Every new discover has only enforced that evolution is fact.

Ho hum - this is your claim. Still waiting for you to put forward your proposal.
Or maybe you are trying to delay and distract so long that you hope that I will forget what the topic of this thread is.

You spend so much time trying to argue about side issues that I am fully convinced that you never intend to post your proposal. These games seem to be a matter of avoidance and delay.

[michealb]

What are you disputing then? That we don't a 100% proof of how the first cell came to be. So what? Even if we don't have have a hypothesis that is feasible in your eyes. So what? All it proves is we don't know everything yet and I don't think anyone is trying to claim we know everything there is to know. We have lots of theories and hypothesis and you want to know something interesting even if every theory man has and every hypothesis that we have is proven false it still isn't evidence of god.

[Tj3]

What are you disputing then?

I am examine your proposals. I am still waiting for your proposal for the first cell, so I cannot tell you what I will dispute, if anything, until I see it. As for evolution, I have made my position clear. I sticvk with what science has proven (microevolution) and do not dispute that fact. I have already told you this many times. Why don't you read what I have posted? Is this a delay tactic to avoid providing an answer?

That we don't a 100% proof of how the first cell came to be.

Strawman. You have been told many times that no one is looking for a 100%. Just a feasible proposal. And so far you have done everything to avoid providing one.

The longer that you avoid the question, the more that it appears that you have no answers.

Look, if you are struggling with putting together a proposal for the first cell, there are other questions in the OP, or another that I added not too long ago about the diving bell spider. Feel free to try to address one of the other questions, or go back to some of the rebuttals that you received in post #31.

[Credendovidis]

Tj3 to michealb :

I am examine your proposals. I am still waiting for your proposal for the first cell, so I cannot tell you what I will dispute, if anything, until I see it. I have already told you this many times. Why don't you read what I have posted? Is this a delay tactic to avoid providing an answer?

Tj3 own tactic is to boor everyone on this board to death with his own unsupported wild claim of some invisible deity called "God" to exist.
Instead of being honest and admit that Tommy - Tj3 and others BELIEVE that "God" exists, Tommy hides behind a list of claims about evolution and demands proof for the evolution views to these claims, and failing to supply him with a "perfect" and solid reply he - in advance - already declares that any failing reply confirms and supports his own totally unsupported views on the existence of said deity.

We all know it does not work that way.
Whatever questions on Evolution Tommy has, he should post on the evolution board.
And ask for answers there. I already suggested that several times in this thread.

The existence of this deity called "God" can only be proved by direct OSE on "God's" existence. Tommy knows, we all know. Still Tommy uses this strawman argument to force the gullible towards his religious views.

It seems that Tommy feels that to BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God" is not enough. It has to have some format of proof.
Is that the faith of a real Christian??

===

Can we please stop with pursuing Tj3's questions on evolution here?
The only topic issue is if Tj3's claim is valid or not.

===

This topic is NOT about evolution. This topic is NOT about lack of replies proving anything. This topic is only about Tommies approach and lack of support for his own belief and for what he states in his own post (even if that post was originally posted on another Q&A board).

THERE SIMPLY IS NO - AND NEVER WILL BE - ANY EVIDENCE (OSE) FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

ALL ONE CAN DO IS BELIEVE AND HAVE FAITH IN THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

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

[Tj3]

Tj3 to michealb :

Tj3 own tactic is to boor everyone on this board to death with his own unsupported wild claim of some invisible deity called "God" to exist.

Cred,

I see that rather than posting a well thought out answer, you have chosen once again to post abuse.

As I said in the OP:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see that you want to distract from the questions at hand. I understand why - things are not looking good for your position. I am sure that you will continue to post abuse as your best alternative to a real answer.

Your admission is noted.

[Tj3]

Still waiting for any feasible approach for this animal:

DIVING BELL SPIDER

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Credendovidis]

Cred,I see that rather than posting a well thought out answer, you have chosen once again to post abuse.

Tommy : the only abuse here is your continued addressing of these evolution queries, against my clear and frequent request in this topic, while you perfectly know that your evolution queries are not the topic here.

The real issue here is if your evolution questions and possible replies to these have any validity towards the existence of "God".

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

I blame you for deliberately side-stepping that point again and again and again , as it shows a dark shadow on your own integrity as a real Christian.

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

.

.

[Tj3]

Still waiting for a feasible answer to these questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Credendovidis]

For all participating here :

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

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

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

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

===

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

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


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

.

.

[Tj3]

For all participating here :
Once more I have to request to stop any "debate" on Tj3's queries on evolution, and instead of that address the only topic issue here :

Cred,

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

In his OP, Cred says:

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

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

:D:D:D:D:D

Trust me, I do understand why you are frustrated.

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

[Credendovidis]

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

Tommy : the topic was clear about the issues at stake, from the first post onwards.
You knew that very well , as we had this discussion several times before.
And every time I reacted to your post I informed you that your list of queries is interesting, but that the faillure to have any of your queries replied to 100% in accordance to your demands can never be considered as valid "proof" of the existence of "God" .

Only direct OSE proof can be considered as valid evidence for the existence of "God". Nothing else.

I told you also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

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

That you act each time the injured and innocent party when your failing arguments are turned down as invalid, and continue than with your "insults, ad hominems, and ridicule" lamenting makes me wondering if that is the actual way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" and the "Last Days Bible Conference" approach the issue of the existence of " approach the issue of the existence of "...

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

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

.

.

[Tj3]

Cred,

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

I know that you don't like things like this backfiring on you. I don't know why you thought that the result would be different from that which happened on the other board, but now you are batting zero out of 2.

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

Hey, why don't you try to answer the questions! You were not able to when we discussed this a year or so ago, but you have had plenty of time to consider the topic since then.

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

[Credendovidis]

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

NO Tommy : I do not hate you at all. I dislike your haughtiness, your intolerance, and your hypocrisy !

And again NO Tommy : Atheist' and/or evolutionist' answers have nothing to do with your (invalid) argument.
So there is no "exposing" at all !

As stated before : Only direct OSE proof can be considered as valid evidence for the existence of "God". Nothing else.

There is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".

The only thing anyone can do is BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God".

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

That you act each time the injured and innocent party when your failing arguments are turned down as invalid, and continue than with your "insults, ad hominems, and ridicule" lamenting makes me wondering if that is the actual way in which organisations like the "Christian Discernment Resources" and the "Last Days Bible Conference" approach the issue of the existence of " approach the issue of the existence of "...

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

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

.

.

[JoeT777]

The real issue is also that there is no - and never will be - any OSE proof for the existence of "God".

As I’ve stated before, you’re correct, there is no tangible proof of God’s existence; nobody can put God in your hands. It takes measurably less “faith” to believe in God than it does the unproven theories of evolution.

JoeT

[Credendovidis]

As I've stated before, you're correct, there is no tangible proof of God's existence; nobody can put God in your hands. It takes measurably less “faith” to believe in God than it does the unproven theories of evolution.JoeT

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

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

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

Cred,

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

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

[Tj3]

Still waiting for a feasible answer to these questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIVING BELL SPIDER

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

Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------