[JoeT777]

TJ3
The reason the watch maker argument is not a good argument because life reproduces on its own with differences. The watch doesn't. So if you could find a life form that doesn't reproduce and pops in out of nowhere you would have valid argument but that is not the case so you don't.

If life creates its own, who created the first life? If as you suggest, it evolved, how and when did this proto-life first become aware it should reproduce, when and what chemical reaction caused it to become conscious of its surrounding? What chemical reaction caused human’s to become self-aware. If it’s by chance, why didn’t any of the other species become self-aware? If it’s by chance wouldn’t traits of self-awareness be evident in the top branches of all species? Darwinism hasn’t answered these questions. Thus it’s reasonable to assume Darwinism isn’t the answerer. Yet, faith in God does provide that answer.

The watch analogy isn’t about whether the watch created itself, but that a maker must be present because of the intricacy of the watch not because of the proliferation watches.


JoeT

[Nicote22]

Jehovah is the true god

[Tj3]

I'm confused about what you're asking about the trilobyte eye or why you're repeating it. There seems to be no question in there. What is the problem with them having evolved a more advanced eye than a human? Octopi have more advanced eyes than us too...

There is no question because it is an answer. I am repeating it because, for some strange reason, Cred keeps repeating the question. There is no problem with having an advanced eye, nor did I say that there was.

[Credendovidis]

If life creates its own, who created the first life? If as you suggest, it evolved, how and when did this proto-life first become aware it should reproduce, when and what chemical reaction caused it to become conscious of its surrounding?

Dear Joe : life evolved. First life form was not self aware. It will have been extremely simple, without any specialization (no DNA, no RNA).

It's actually a chicken and egg situation. The latest research findings suggest that first life was most likely and highly possibly centered on one of the following hypothesi : the clay model and the emerging hypercycles model.

I just posted a new topic on the Other Science Board named : "Abiogenesis - origin of first life forms"
On this board the question is not about evolution, but if any query and/or answer on any subject (the topic refers to some queries on evolution as example) ever can be valid as OSE for the existence of "God"??

So do you want to debate evolution ? Go to the Other Science Board. And if you like to debate the OSE for the existence of "God"? than do that here in this topic.

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

Dear Joe : life evolved. First life form was not self aware. It will have been extremely simple, without any specialization (no DNA, no RNA).

Please show us your validation for this claim or is this simply something that you BELIEVE to be true.

[JoeT777]

Dear Joe : life evolved. First life form was not self aware. It will have been extremely simple, without any specialization (no DNA, no RNA).

It's actually a chicken and egg situation. The latest research findings suggest that first life was most likely and highly possibly centered on one of the following hypothesi : the clay model and the emerging hypercycles model.

Get real; this scenario is no more correct than the king of gods (Zeus) is on Mount Olympus throwing thunderbolts at Poseidon.

Speak for yourself; I’m no chicken’s son. My momma is a chicken hawk; hawk son; that’s Henry-JoeT Hawk, a rootin’, tootin’, pop-gun, shootin’ chickenhawk! I evolved this way - heck, if man can do it, us chickenhawks can do it.

So do you want to debate evolution?

No.

Why should I debate the social pseudo-science myth?

The important thing is that God exists.

JoeT

[Credendovidis]

So do you want to debate evolution?

No. Why should I debate the social pseudo-science myth?
The important thing is that God exists. JoeT

If that is what you want, than why do you discuss evolution related arguments here in this topic?

This topic is about validity : that any query or answer on any question or list of questions can not be held as OSE for another subject, in this case the existence of "God".

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

If that is what you want, than why do you discuss evolution related arguments here in this topic?

Interesting. It is the atheists who keep injecting evolution into the topic. My posts asked if there were "natural" explanations. But Cred, maybe you are admitting that evolution is the only natural approach that you can imagine, so for you, it comes down to an examination of evolution.

This topic is about validity : that any query or answer on any question or list of questions can not be held as OSE for another subject, in this case the existence of "God".

Actually, it was the atheists who brought God into this. I wsaid that I was quite willing to discuss it solely on the basis of what could be proven scientifically, but no atheist would agree to that approach.

And as for discussing the validity of the evdiences presented on this thread, you avoid discussing that also.

[JoeT777]

If that is what you want, than why do you discuss evolution related arguments here in this topic?
This topic is about validity : that any query or answer on any question or list of questions cannot be held as OSE for another subject, in this case the existence of "God".

It’s funny you ask for Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and yet when presented with that evidence you reject it because it doesn’t have a particular scientific flavor. There doesn’t seem to be any bone a Christian can throw. Conversely we find that “[s]ometimes the professor with his bone becomes almost as dangerous as a dog with his bone. And the dog at least does not deduce a theory from it, proving that mankind is going to the dogs-or that it came from them. … On the assumption of that evolutionary connection (a connection which I am not in the least concerned to deny), the really arresting and remarkable fact is the comparative absence of any such remains recording that connection at that point. The sincerity of Darwin really admitted this; and that is how we came to use such a term as the Missing Link. But the dogmatism of Darwinian has been too strong for agnosticism of Darwin; and men have fallen into turning this entirely negative term into a positive image. They talk of searching for the habits and habitat of the Missing Link; as if one were to talk of being on friendly terms with the gap in a narrative or the hole in an argument, of taking a walk with a nonsequitur or dining with an undistributed middle. In this sketch, therefore, of man in his relation to certain religious and historical problems, I shall waste no further space on these speculations on the nature of man before he became man. His body may have been evolved from the brutes; but we know nothing of any such transition that throws the smallest light upon his soul as it has shown itself in history.” C. K. Chesterton

JoeT

[michealb]

I haven't seen anyone but religious people claim to know for sure how life began. As I have said we have hypothesises but no theory yet. All that proves is that we don't have a theory yet.

And all that Trilobite eyes means is that evolution can go in very far in one direction and then dead end and never go that far again. All the proves is that evolution isn't a guided process.

The reason science favors the natural solutions is because natural solutions have been proven before. Prove a supernatural solution and that will get considored as well.

And JoeT777 if you ever hope to understand why evolutions is such a great theory you need to leave the elitism behind. Humans aren't that special. We are not the predetermined result of evolution. We are an oddity of it. I also challenge the idea that we are any more self aware than other animal of intellect.

[JoeT777]

And JoeT777 if you ever hope to understand why evolutions is such a great theory you need to leave the elitism behind. Humans aren't that special. We are not the predetermined end result of evolution. We are an oddity of it. I also challenge the idea that we are any more self aware than other animal of intellect.

Man, endowed with the uniqueness of body and soul, is an oddity? You would lower man to a depraved animal, an oddity, and rise up science in its place? Forgive me if I forgo such an education; I can do without such greatness, or should I say lowliness.

JoeT

[Tj3]

And all that Trilobite eyes means is that evolution can go in very far in one direction and then dead end and never go that far again. All the proves is that evolution isn't a guided process.

It proves nothing about evolution. Indeed evolution cannot even provide a decent hypothesis about trilobite eyes.

The reason science favors the natural solutions is because natural solutions have been proven before.

No natural solution for creation of life or species change has been proven. That has gone nowhere beyond a claim by a few folk such as yourself.

[michealb]

It proves nothing about evolution. Indeed evolution cannot even provide a decent hypothesis about trilobite eyes.

I just did, there the environment caused trilobites to evolve advanced eye sight however such refinement wasn't successful so trilobites died out. It's that simple.

No natural solution for creation of life or species change has been proven. That has gone nowhere beyond a claim by a few folk such as yourself.

I have said more times than I can count that there is no definitive information on how the first life formed the only thing we can deduce is that it was a natural process because we have no examples of supernatural processes.

Now as far as species change I dare you to define what prevents many small changes adding up to large changes over time. I suggest you make your own thread for that though.

[Credendovidis]

It’s funny you ask for Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and yet when presented with that evidence you reject it because it doesn’t have a particular scientific flavor.

Pardon me Joe, but I have NEVER seen any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
NEVER here in this topic, NEVER in any other topic, NEVER in any other religious discussion board, NEVER on the Internet, NEVER anywhere else.
Dear Joe : you seem incapable of understanding the difference between religious Subjective Supported Evidence ("I believe that ....") and Objective Supported Evidence (OSE).

If - as you suggest - there is any OSE for the existence of "God", than why are Christian fundamentalists so extremely active HIDING that evidence behind babble , suggestions, and wild claims?
Let's see than that OSE Joe : show me that OSE!!

There doesn’t seem to be any bone a Christian can throw.

What "bone" are you talking about, Joe ?
I never asked for bones. Just some Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence will do fine here in this topic !
Show me that OSE , Joe!!

... Darwin really admitted this ...

Sorry Joe : Darwin NEVER suggested that he did not BELIEVE in "God".
So whatever Darwin admitted about his theory, he NEVER suggested that "God" did not exist.
Darwin's theory is not about "God" not existing. It is about how the earliest simple life forms changed (evolved) over time to what exists now.

This topic is not about Darwin. It is not about evolution. It is about the question if queries and replies to these queries (as example a list of queries on evolution were used) can validly be used as some format of OSE for the existence of "God". So your above comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

Pardon me Joe, but I have NEVER seen any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

This was the argument that you gave on the other site! You must have lost your glasses again!

[Tj3]

I just did, there the environment caused trilobites to evolve advanced eye sight however such refinement wasn't successful so trilobites died out. It's that simple.

You wrote your claim - the proof is where?

I have said more times than I can count that there is no definitive information on how the first life formed

But I did not ask for proof - as I said many times - I asked you for a feasible way that it could come about naturally. For some reason you keep wanting to change the question.

the only thing we can deduce is that it was a natural process because we have no examples of supernatural processes.

That is not the scientific approach. Rule something out because you don't believe it.

Now as far as species change I dare you to define what prevents many small changes adding up to large changes over time. I suggest you make your own thread for that though.

I don't have to prove what it is that prevents it from happening. You believe that it does and you claim that it has been proven - so that means that you have indisputable evidence of species change by means of evolution.

Where is it?

[JoeT777]

Pardon me Joe, but I have NEVER seen any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
NEVER here in this topic, NEVER in any other topic, NEVER in any other religious discussion board, NEVER on the Internet, NEVER anywhere else.
Dear Joe : you seem incapable of understanding the difference between religious Subjective Supported Evidence ("I believe that ....") and Objective Supported Evidence (OSE).

I've offered empirical evidence in the linked post. You've rejected intuitive evidence given by others; in effect wanting God placed in your hands for inspection.

If - as you suggest - there is any OSE for the existence of "God", than why are Christian fundamentalists so extremely active HIDING that evidence behind babble , suggestions, and wild claims?

I haven't babbled nor made wild claims for God. Since God is a spiritual being, it takes a spiritual knowledge to come to know him. You've rejected this out of hand.

What "bone" are you talking about, Joe ?
I never asked for bones. Just some Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence will do fine here in this topic ! Show me that OSE , Joe !!!

Open your eyes.

Sorry Joe : Darwin NEVER suggested that he did not BELIEVE in "God".
So whatever Darwin admitted about his theory, he NEVER suggested that "God" did not exist.
Darwin's theory is not about "God" not existing. It is about how the earliest simple life forms changed (evolved) over time to what exists now.
This topic is not about Darwin. It is not about evolution. It is about the question if queries and replies to these queries (as example a list of queries on evolution were used) can validly be used as some format of OSE for the existence of "God". So your above comment is totally irrelevant to this topic.

Darwinian theories have been used by the agnostic to show that there is no God; life (matter) creates itself. Consequently, say the agnostics, there is no need of God. Some, including myself, have shown that such theories are unproven. As previously stated, if evolutionary claims are true as science requires, conformation of iterated tests will show 95% probability of conformation on each test. Primordial soup, the genesis of the Darwin's theory, has yet to be proven in a single test of prebio atmosphere. If the primary postulate isn't true then none of the remaining postulates can be true. Thus we can conclude that all the postulates of the theory are incorrect.

Since Darwin's theory is incorrect, only one alternative remains; life was created by God.



JoeT

[michealb]

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

And as I said you can't claim god did it till you prove god. Otherwise I can say it was done by bigfoots with fairy wings and you can't prove me wrong based on your method of evidence.

This has nothing to do with my belief in the super natural. It is simply a matter of evidence. Every solution we have ever found has been a natural solution even things that at one time were attributed to the supernatural were found to have natural solutions. So until you prove one supernatural solution you can't invoke it when talking about science.

So once again the only evidence for god is evidence of the super natural. Prove ghosts, goblins, demons, devils, angels, or god himself. Then we will talk about using them in scientific theory until then your wrong...

[Tj3]

Even if Darwin's theory is incorrect(It isn't) it doesn't prove god. There could be any number of natural theories that would explain it. We just don't know them.

Once again, one does not need to know the full answer to be able to assess whether something is feasible.

[michealb]

That is true. You just have warped sense of what is feasible compared to 99% of the scientists out there. You believe a supernatural solution that hasn't been proven makes more sense than a natural solution that hasn't been proven. Then try to say your supernatural solution is the one and only solution.

Your ideas and concepts show no grounding in reality or science as the rest of us know it. It only shows us that regardless of how far you have to shy away from reality you will go there to farther your religious agenda. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that your wrong you won't admit it.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.