Continue the debate in here

Why do you keep copying and pasting your previous posts? I'm not ignoring your questions, I'm just waiting for an answer.

Yes or No?

Why do you keep copying and pasting your previous posts? I'm not ignoring your questions, I'm just waiting for an answer.

Yes or No?

I’ve already answered your question; As far as I am aware at this present moment, NO. So my answer is currently no, though I am open to the possibility that my answer will change in the future to be yes. So Liam, how many more times do you want me to answer the same question?

----

Liam, here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, did you know Dawkins won’t even debate creationists?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

If Richard Dawkins has evidence that evolution is true, then why should he be unwilling to debate creationists?

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

So you think that in the future YOU WILL be able to prove God exists?

So you think that in the future YOU WILL be able to prove God exists?

Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

I just want to know if you CAN?

I just want to know if you CAN?

Yeh but I’ve tried argument after argument after argument and you still won’t believe in the existence of God. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you.

Yeh but I’ve tried argument after argument after argument and you still won’t believe in the existence of God.

For a start you have not provided any arguments, merely opinions, scripture, circular reasoning and pesudoscience. All of which I have disproved and rebuked.

I just want to know if you CAN prove God exists? Can you?

Yeh but I’ve tried argument after argument after argument and you still won’t believe in the existence of God.


For a start you have not provided any arguments, merely opinions, scripture, circular reasoning and pesudoscience. All of which I have disproved and rebuked.

I just want to know if you CAN prove God exists? Can you?

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch this video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

I just want to know if you CAN prove God exists? Can you?

Just give a one word answer and I will gladly continue.

Yes or No!

Not maybe, not 'some time in the future' just a simple Yes or No!

I just want to know if you CAN prove God exists? Can you?

Just give a one word answer and I will gladly continue.

Yes or No!

Not maybe, not 'some time in the future' just a simple Yes or No!

I can give you strong reasons why I believe in God but that doesn’t mean I can guarantee you will accept my reasoning. So even if I provided proof that I believe to be strong enough to warrant belief in God that doesn’t mean I can guarantee that you will accept it.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch this video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

Dave I will gladly answer your question!

But at least do me the courtesy to answer my question!

Can you prove the existance of God (to an intelligent person, not children)? Yes or No?

Dave I will gladly answer your question!

But at least do me the courtesy to answer my question!

Can you prove the existance of God (to an intelligent person, not children)? Yes or No?

I have reasons that I think are good enough to warrant belief in God. Just because you don’t accept my reasons for believing in God doesn’t mean I don’t have reasons. So it all comes down to whether you think my reasons for the existence of God are good enough proof for the existence of God. I believe they are a good starting point in proving the existence of God. So my answer is yes and no. I have reasons to believe in the existence of God that is possibility good enough proof for some people but not for others. That’s why I need to get to know God better so I can better defend Him.

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

----

Liam, you might find this debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox interesting:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox

Liam, you might find these articles on the existence of God interesting:

Does God Exist? Part 1: http://www.seriousfaith.com/dvo/devotion.asp?teachingnumber=91
Does God Exist? Part 2: http://www.seriousfaith.com/dvo/devotion.asp?teachingnumber=92
Does God Exist? Part 3: http://www.seriousfaith.com/dvo/devotion.asp?teachingnumber=93
Does God Exist? Part 4: http://www.seriousfaith.com/dvo/devotion.asp?teachingnumber=94
Does God Exist? Part 5: http://www.seriousfaith.com/dvo/devotion.asp?teachingnumber=95

Hi Dave,

First of all let me apologise for my absence in the past couple of weeks, I have been really busy with work.

I am not suprised that you have not answered my question, as I now know that you do not truely believe in God, for if you did you would, if not literlally, try to prove Gods existance. Your flimsy Yes/No answer shows that you cannot even prove Gods existance to yourself.

You either can, or can not prove Gods existance, you cannot do both, which is what you are trying to do. Since you cannot prove the existance of God (any God) then I think it is safe to conclude this debate on the grounds of a lack of an issue. Because if you cannot prove God, then I have nothing to disprove, therefore no debate is required and our default position (including yours) should be one of atheisim.

But it is not, simply because of your delusion. You believe that something exists, something which you cannot prove, yet you expect me to accept and respect your belief/delusion. I often wonder if you have ever converted someone? Or saved their soul? I doubt it!

I hope you agree that it is time to conclude this debate, because you cannot prove God's existance. (Creation is not proof of God, only proof of existance). If, however you want to continue, then your answer to my question must be, YES!

Is it??

For a start you have not provided any arguments, merely opinions, scripture, circular reasoning and pesudoscience. All of which I have disproved and rebuked.

If this where true you would have answered all the questions I have asked. But you haven’t. So here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

----

Hi Dave,

First of all let me apologise for my absence in the past couple of weeks, I have been really busy with work.

I am not suprised that you have not answered my question, as I now know that you do not truely believe in God, for if you did you would, if not literlally, try to prove Gods existance. Your flimsy Yes/No answer shows that you cannot even prove Gods existance to yourself.

You either can, or can not prove Gods existance, you cannot do both, which is what you are trying to do. Since you cannot prove the existance of God (any God) then I think it is safe to conclude this debate on the grounds of a lack of an issue. Because if you cannot prove God, then I have nothing to disprove, therefore no debate is required and our default position (including yours) should be one of atheisim.

But it is not, simply because of your delusion. You believe that something exists, something which you cannot prove, yet you expect me to accept and respect your belief/delusion. I often wonder if you have ever converted someone? Or saved their soul? I doubt it!

I hope you agree that it is time to conclude this debate, because you cannot prove God's existance. (Creation is not proof of God, only proof of existance). If, however you want to continue, then your answer to my question must be, YES!

Is it??

Just to clarify. I do believe God exists. Therefore I am not an atheist. I have reasons why I believe God exists, which I’ve attempted to show you.
I would be interested to read your answers to the questions I’ve asked. So for now, this debate will continue.

Yes or No?

Yes or No?

Can I prove the existence of God (to an intelligent person, not children)? Well it depends on the person in question. For myself I have what I think to be strong enough and good enough reasons for believing in the existence of God. But as for you it’s clear that you haven’t accepted my reasons (so far). You might want to answer the following question:

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

You clearly haven’t been satisfied so far with my attempts to prove the existence of God.

I would be interested to read / know your answers to the rest of the questions I’ve asked. So here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

To anyone....Yes or No?

To anyone....Yes or No?

Like I’ve said it depends on the person in question. Some people would accept what I’ve said so far as being good enough reason to believe in the existence of God, while others (you included) wouldn’t. So whether somebody believes in the existence of God depends on what kind of evidence that person needs and how much of the evidence they need. You might want to answer the following question:

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

I would be interested to read / know your answers to the rest of the questions I’ve asked. So here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

Yes or No?

Yes or No?

Yes, I think everything I’ve mentioned up to this point in the debate is good enough reason(s) for believing in the existence of God. I can’t force you to accept everything I’ve mentioned, but I would be interested to read / know your answers to the questions I’ve asked. So here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

Is that a definative Yes? If so I will continue!

Is that a definative Yes? If so I will continue!

Yeh, I suppose it is. I would be interested to read / know your answers to the questions I’ve asked. So here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

Please, a one word answer would suffice. Yes?

Please, a one word answer would suffice. Yes?

Yep. I would be interested to read / know your answers to the questions I’ve asked. So here are the questions I would like you to answer:

Why are we here?
What’s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse? Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noah’s flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? I’m beginning to think that you don’t believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldn’t it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Edwin Poots admitted that he was a young earth creationist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

What do you think of that?

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? I’m beginning to think you’re a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans can’t live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn’t evolved?

If there was an oxygen–less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Liam, has evolution been observed while it’s happening?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I quote:

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

When you consider the complexity of life on Earth coupled with the factors that allow for life to exist and flourish on Earth (not too near the Sun and not too far away from the Sun so that water can exist on Earth’s surface, plus the existence of the moon as a stabilizer for Earth and Jupiter to protect from asteroids) I believe this is strong circumstantial evidence that points to God as the designer and creator of life.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.

The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn’t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Like a car with a chassis and wheels in place but no engine to power it, would all the woodpeckers not die out if they developed a strong beak but hadn’t developed protection for their brain? Would all the woodpeckers not die out before evolving on to the state of complexity that we find woodpeckers have today? Is it actually possible to look at complex animals we see nowadays and work backwards and say that they evolved? How is it possible if multiple factors we see today in an animal are required for an animal’s survival and removal of one of those factors would result in the death and inability to survive of that animal? Surely then the animal would have died out before it got to the point of complexity that we see in the animal nowadays? Therefore the woodpecker is a bird that must have been created as a woodpecker with all the right factors in place for it to survive. This points to God as the creator of the woodpecker.

Liam, where did the first spark come from for the big bang?

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God can’t all be deluded.

Liam you obviously have difficulty in accepting the existence of God as a true reality. Therefore you need to tell me what it would take for you to be convinced of the existence of God and then I can tell you if I can convince you. Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

Thats was not one word. Please just answer with one word, so I know where I stand. You claim that you can prove God's existance. Yes?