[Alty]

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Alty]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[michealb]

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

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

[Alty]

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

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

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

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

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

[TexasParent]

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



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

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

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

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

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

[Capuchin]

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

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

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

[TexasParent]

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

[Tj3]

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

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

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

[Tj3]

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

Then let's look at any one of them.

[Tj3]

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

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

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

[NeedKarma]

Then let's look at any one of them.

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

[Tj3]

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

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

[michealb]

TJ3,

Your entire rebuttal consisted of

You have not even provided a feasible hypothesis yet.

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

[Alty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Credendovidis]

Please read the header of this topic :

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

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

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

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

I repeat :

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

[Alty]

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

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

[Credendovidis]

Dear Alty :

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

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

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

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

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

:)

.

.