[Credendovidis]

·
It took me quite some energy and time to find and retrieve this data from "Answerway".

This is the list of arguments that TJ3 (Tom Smith/Toms777) repeatedly claimed in 2007 to be Objective Supporting Evidence for the existence of God, and which he refuses to repost here for obvious reasons :

Blindness is no excuse!

As you well know, 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 to provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists. (*1*)

For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God.(*2*) And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted.

The issues are :

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

Pericles 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.
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.

Blindness is no excuse!

As you well know, 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 to provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists. (*1*)

For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God.(*2*) And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted.

The issues are :

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 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.
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, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.

I look forward to your response.

Tom

P.S.: It is great that you give me the opportunity to keep posting this so that people can see that in fact you have no answers to these proofs of God's existence.
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.

I look forward to your response.

Tom

P.S.: It is great that you give me the opportunity to keep posting this so that people can see that in fact you have no answers to these proofs of God's existence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*1*) : "If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists."
That is an incorrect conclusion. There are many (other) possible answers, of which the suggested answer is only one! At most it is confirming that so far no other valid explanation has been found. It is certainly NOT objective proof for god's existence !

(*2*) : "For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God".
That is also an incorrect conclusion. It is only proof that so far no natural answer has been found ! It is certainly NOT objective proof for god's existence !

·
Well folks : there you have Tj3's list of "Objective Supporting Evidence for the existence of God".

·
Do you agree that this is a list with "Objective Supporting Evidence for the existence of God", or is this only a list of Subjective Supporting Arguments for creationist claims?
Please explain on which grounds you decided that.

:)
·

[WVHiflyer]

"There are many (other) possible answers, of which the suggested answer is only one! At most it is confirming that so far no other valid explanation has been found. It is certainly NOT objective proof for god's existence !"

Can't say it much better than that.

Lightning was supposedly created by angry gods. Until we discovered differently...

[Tj3]

John,

First, we should note that the reference to "Pericles" in the post is a previous user name that you had prior to being removed from Answerway for abuse. Also note the comment "Blindness is no excuse". That was because no matter how many times it was posted, you kept denying that you saw any of my posted questions (these and the other posts). I am glad to see that you were not being entirely truthful and in fact you were reading but were unable to respond to any of the questions.

You missed a few points - first, this is only one of a series of posts (not a list as you are claiming), and prior to the discussions, all agreed that there were two options - either God created all that there is or it came about naturally. Neither you nor any of your friends could answer these or any of the other questions that I asked, and you kept denying that you ever saw any of my posts; and subsequently denied that you agreed to only two options, but would not tell us what you claimed third option was. In any case, neither you nor your friends could ever provide even a guess to any of these or the other questions that I and others asked.

Feel free to post any answers that you have.

Follow-up comment.

John I see on the other thread you made this comment.

But I have provided answers to each and every point you made, Tom. Several times in fact. And every time (at least 10) all you did was reposting "Blindness is no excuse" and a repeat of your list.

Good, then if you have answers you should have no problem posting them as well. I look forward to seeing them!

Tom

[Credendovidis]

Note the comment "Blindness is no excuse". That was because no matter how many times it was posted, you kept denying that you saw any of my posted questions (these and the other posts).

No Tom : that is a "misrepresentation of reality" : you reposted that because I repeatedly stated that your "evidence" was no OSE for the existence of God, but represented only your religious views.

I am glad to see that you were not being entirely truthful and in fact you were reading but were unable to respond to any of the questions.

Another "misrepresentation of reality", Tom ! I have responded to every point you made before, several times in fact. That you refused to accept my point of view is your freedom. But that did not disqualify my reply!

You missed a few points - first, this is only one of a series of posts (not a list as you are claiming

One more "misrepresentation of reality", Tom ! I just copied this straight from Answerway to here. That you posted this list some 20+ times there in various editions and slightly different versions is not my problem.
The essence here is your invalid argumentation, and your deliberate lie that what you posted was OSE for God's existence. And that was also the obvious reason why you refused to repost the list here.

Feel free to post any answers that you have.

If during the following discussions my answers to your points are important, I surely will do that.
As far you are concerned : for you what should count is your "misrepresentation of reality" in this matter, Tom !

:rolleyes:

[Tj3]

No Tom : that is a "misrepresentation of reality" : you reposted that because I repeatedly stated that your "evidence" was no OSE for the existence of God, but represented only your religious views.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, John, we've heard this tune before, deny, deny, deny. This is a tactic that you use to distract from the topic at hand. How many times were you suspended from AW for abuse John (rhetorical question)?

One more "misrepresentation of reality", Tom ! I just copied this straight from Answerway to here.

I really don't care about your desire to argue and deny every single thing, John, I am interested in seeing your answers to the questions, which I note that so far, are notable by their continuing absence!

Try to stay focused on topic.

Tom

[WVHiflyer]

You asked for a plausible explanation:

Evolution of the Eye

Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

- - - - - -
More plausible to me than T's explanation.

-

[Tj3]

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

This is not plausible and here is why. A lens cannot just form over time. If it is there, it must be completely there or it interferes with sight. If it is not focused, it interferes with sight. To focus, there must be muscles that focus it, For sight to exist, there must the appropriate nerves and the appropriate programming in the brain - unless these exist at the same time, there is no advantage to any of the changes. Without the lens, there is no way to focus a picture on the retina, and therefore there is no advantage.

I could go on and on. The various elements of the eye must exist at the same time.

[Credendovidis]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, John, we've heard this tune before, deny, deny, deny. This is a tactic that you use to distract from the topic at hand. How many times were you suspended from AW for abuse John (rhetorical question)?.

Rhetorical or not : there is your unchristian, unfriendly, and hypocrite approach again !
It is with you either innuendo or "misrepresentation of reality", or you post "arguments" that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Does my suspension from Answerway matter? Answerway suspended you just as well, Tom, for unacceptable attacking and pressurizing people. I note you are doing exactly the same here now also !

How sad...

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

Rhetorical or not : there is your unchristian, unfriendly, and hypocrite approach again !
It is with you either innuendo or "misrepresentation of reality", or you post "arguments" that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Does my suspension from Answerway matter? Answerway suspended you just as well, Tom, for unacceptable attacking and pressurizing people. I note you are doing exactly the same here now also !

How sad .....

:rolleyes:

·

John, I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users. If you have something of value to contribute, then do so in a mature respectful manner.

[Credendovidis]

John, I am not interested in your continued abuse of this thread and its users. If you have something of value to contribute, then do so in a mature respectful manner.

I too am not interested in YOUR continued abuse of this thread and its users. If you have something of value to contribute, then do so in a mature respectful manner.

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

I too am not interested in YOUR continued abuse of this thread and its users. If you have something of value to contribute, then do so in a mature respectful manner.

:rolleyes:

·

Go away John - I want to discuss the topic.

[Tj3]

This is not plausible and here is why. A lens cannot just form over time. If it is there, it must be completely there or it interferes with sight. If it is not focused, it interferes with sight. To focus, there must be muscles that focus it, For sight to exist, there must the appropriate nerves and the appropriate programming in the brain - unless these exist at the same time, there is no advantage to any of the changes. Without the lens, there is no way to focus a picture on the retina, and therefore there is no advantage.

I could go on and on. The various elements of the eye must exist at the same time.

[Credendovidis]

Go away John - I want to discuss the topic.

For this time only I'll just do that Tom . I'm now off to horizontal mode for a couple of hours...

:D

·

[ScottRC]

If during the following discussions my answers to your points are important, I surely will do that.

I'd be quite interested to see your replies to this... I'm not sure what your point was in posting these if you're not going to refute his claims.

Should be like shooting fish in a barrel...

Looking forward to hearing your reply.

[Credendovidis]

I'd be quite interested to see your replies to this : "A lens cannot just form over time".

Why do you claim that? Do you have undeniable Objective Supported Evidence to that claim? Why would that be impossible? Please provide OSE for that claim!

The origin of the eye was no more than one part of an early life form to become - through changes in DNA - sensitive towards light. It had the advantage to that life form that it could adapt to - and profit from - changing light levels during each "24 hour" cycle (which was not 24 hours anyway). Eyes formed much much later . And lenses formed again much later to improve the eye function.
It is a creationist fallacy to suggest that the eye did not develop in extreme small subsequent steps.

A nice and simple explanation to the development of the eye can be found here !

:rolleyes:

·

[ordinaryguy]

It took me quite some energy and time to find and retrieve this data from "Answerway".

Why you find it worth your trouble is beyond me. All of you who are trading insults on this thread deserve each other, IMO.

[Credendovidis]

Why you find it worth your trouble is beyond me. All of you who are trading insults on this thread deserve each other, IMO.

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion !

:)

[Tj3]

Why do you claim that? Do you have undeniable Objective Supported Evidence to that claim? Why would that be impossible? Please provide OSE for that claim!

Why don't you read the rest of my post? Taking one sentence out of context is not appropriate.

[Tj3]

John,

You said that you would post your answers on here which you claim to already have - where are they?

[Credendovidis]

Why don't you read the rest of my post? Taking one sentence out of context is not appropriate.

To you that may not seem appropriate.

To me YOUR attitude and approach of misrepresenting the truth at every opportunity seems inappropriate - specially as you are someone spending a lot of time in trying to spread "the word" with your - in my opinion - rather sneaky and questionable approach !

You said that you would post your answers on here which you claim to already have - where are they?

Did I ? Really ? Where ? When ? Or do you want to keep that secret too ?

:rolleyes:

·