[Tj3]

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

MARSUPIAL LION

Thylacoleonidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Credendovidis]

Here is another question related to the original question.

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

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

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

:)

.

.

[Credendovidis]

For all :

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

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

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

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

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

Cred,

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

[Tj3]

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

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

Also See Conference (SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION)

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

The point is that consensus science leads to junk science


JoeT

Good post Joe and a good link!

[Tj3]

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria,

It appears that you were right!

[Tj3]

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

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

[Credendovidis]

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

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

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

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

.

.

[Tj3]

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

Cred,

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

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

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

[NeedKarma]

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

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

NK.

[classyT]

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

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

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

[NeedKarma]

I agree with ClassyT.

[classyT]

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

Gotta go give blood to save a life. Cheers!

NK.

NK,

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

[michealb]

ClassyT,

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

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

[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.

[JoeT777]

All:

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

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

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

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


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

JoeT

[Tj3]

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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