Continue the debate in here

Of course I will answer your question. But at least be a man, and answer mine with a yes or no.

Can you prove the existance of God?

Well how much evidence do you need before you will believe in God? I just gave you evidence and you rejected it. How much evidence do you need and what kind of evidence do you need for me to convince you that God exists?

----

No! That is only evidence for evolution. Blind and Natural! As LaPlace said, when asked where God was in hit model of the universe: 'It works without that assumption!'

Ok then. Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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

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?

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

In order for something to be evidence it needs to (at least help) prove your proposition. Your 'Evidence' proves nothing. The complexity of the eye only proves the existance of an eye. The same goes for the woodpecker!

This is not, and never will be evidence for God!

Can you prove God?

Yes or No!

If you are not going to answer with a one word post, then don't bother answering.

In order for something to be evidence it needs to (at least help) prove your proposition. Your 'Evidence' proves nothing. The complexity of the eye only proves the existance of an eye. The same goes for the woodpecker!

Actually the existence of the eye and the woodpecker does prove the existence of the Creator, in the same way that the existence of a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker. Liam, you wouldn’t think when you look at a watch that it just existed and there was nobody who actually created it, would you? You wouldn’t believe it’s possible for a jumble jet to randomly assemble itself over time out of scrap yard full of junk metal, would you? Do you honestly believe that human beings evolved over time out of nothing?

I’ve already shown the difficulties that evolution faces in its attempt to explain the existence of the woodpecker:

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.

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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

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?

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

----

There are other arguments for the existence of God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

I quote:

Arguments for the existence of God

* The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.
* The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god.
* The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[14]
* The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
* Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.
* The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
* The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
* The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
* The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
* Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.

An eye and woodpecker are biological and natural occurances, a watch however, is man made.

If something complex requires a creator, then what created God?

If God does not need a creator, then why do you claim that nature requires a creator?

Can you prove God Exists?

Yes or No?

-- If you do not answer the question I will discontinue the debate. --

An eye and woodpecker are biological and natural occurances, a watch however, is man made.

Because God is over the laws of nature God is able to create the eye and the woodpecker. God proved He was over the laws of nature when Jesus was in the boat with His disciples and Jesus was able to calm the storm. No mere human could have done that. In that act Jesus proved He was over the laws of nature. The laws of nature have to submit to the authority of God. Why? Because God is the Author of Creation.

If something complex requires a creator, then what created God?

If God does not need a creator, then why do you claim that nature requires a creator?

Nobody created God. God has always existed. I believe God was behind creation and He sustains the whole Universe:

COLOSSIANS 1: 17 He existed before everything else began, and he holds all creation together. (NLT)

Things do not just come out of nothing without at least some interference from an external source. If you believe in the big bang, can you explain where the first spark for the big bang came from?

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

----
Liam, you might find this article about the existence of God interesting:

http://delveintojesus.com/articles/64/Does-God-Exist.aspx
That article gives five good reasons to think that God exists:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

As LaPlace said, when asked where God was in hit model of the universe: 'It works without that assumption!'

John Lennox had an interesting answer to that:

Napoleon was looking at Laplace’s magnificent work. It was a mass of equations. And Napoleon said to him “Where’s God in all this?” Then Laplace replied that he didn’t need that hypothesis. Of course Laplace didn’t. What Napoleon was asking was a question that was not related to the topic. If Napoleon had asked the question “Why is it Mr Laplace that there is a universe that follows these laws?” then Laplace might have had to mention God. But when it is a question of how it works, God is not relevant to that question. Again and again it’s used; “I don’t need that hypothesis” that is we don’t need God at all. That is simply false logic. In order to explain the existence of the universe in which such things happen you come now to the fundamental question of all philosophy: Why is there something rather than nothing?

You can listen to John Lennox’s full talk here:
http://glenabbeymedia.org/audio/god_delusion/gd_bf_190108.mp3

----
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=71

What evidence do you have that there is a God?
The very existence of the universe itself is evidence that there is a God. Let’s think about this for a moment. There are only three options for the existence of the universe. One, that it has always been. Two, that it came into being by itself. Three, that it was created. The first option, that the universe is eternal, has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. The motion of the galaxies, the background radiation echo, and other evidences all overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point in time, something scientists call the Big Bang. Option two, that the universe created itself, is philosophically impossible. Of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. We all know that nothing can not do anything. Nothing is nothing. It (if we could even call nothing an it!) cannot see, smell, act, think, or create. So option one and two can be thrown out on scientific and philosophical grounds. Option three, that something or someone outside of the universe created the universe, is the only reasonable option. Let’s imagine I am holding up a painting. When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing else besides the painting itself. The painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. It would not be there if the painter did not exist, and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe itself proves absolutely that there is a creator.

----

If I can't believe that the spacecraft I fly assembled itself, how can I believe that the universe assembled itself? I'm convinced only an intelligent God could have built a universe like this.
-- Jack Lousma

Liam, here are the questions I’m still waiting for you to answer:

Things do not just come out of nothing without at least some interference from an external source. If you believe in the big bang, can you explain where the first spark for the big bang came from?

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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.

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional gene or protein – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

Liam, if you’re looking for reasons/proof for the existence of God, you could have a read of this book:

In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation by John Ashton

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204658260&sr=1-2

You might find it an interesting read.

Liam, here are the questions I’m still waiting for you to answer:

Things do not just come out of nothing without at least some interference from an external source. If you believe in the big bang, can you explain where the first spark for the big bang came from?

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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.

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional gene or protein – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

Things do not just come out of nothing without at least some interference from an external source.

Do you have any evidence to back up that assumption?

Things do not just come out of nothing without at least some interference from an external source.


Do you have any evidence to back up that assumption?

It is obvious that if you have nothing then you can create nothing. If I have nothing then I can create nothing. Likewise in nature if there is nothing then nothing can be ie a baby donkey cannot occur out of nothing without any parent donkeys to mate and give birth. Therefore the only possible way for something to come out of nothing is if there is some kind of interference from an external source. In terms of creation that interference was God and the world was created because He created it out of nothing. God can do that because He is a Supernatural all powerful God.

Scientists cannot create something in a lab out of nothing. There always has to be something to begin with. A new chemical for example is usually created by mixing two other chemicals together and the reaction creates the new chemical. But the two chemicals to be mixed must have been there in the first place for a new chemical to be created. Scientists will never be able to create a new chemical out of absolutely nothing. Therefore until scientists create something out of nothing they will never be able to prove the world came into existence out of nothing without some kind of interference from an external source. And even if scientists did create something out of nothing would that actually prove the world came into existence out of nothing considering the scientists actually had to interfere to create something out of nothing?

Therefore it makes more sense when you consider the world coming into being out of nothing that there was interference from an external source. That external source was God and He created the world.

Liam, here are the questions I’m still waiting for you to answer:

If you believe in the big bang, can you explain where the first spark for the big bang came from?

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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.

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional gene or protein – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

It is obvious that if you have nothing then you can create nothing.

Is it?

Define nothing? What are its properties? If it has properties, then it is no longer 'nothing'. If God is the answer, then why is there God rather than nothing?

Assume we define nothing, what make nothing more natural than something?

Since nothing is as simple as something gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would very likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated. Frank Wilczek answers the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question. 'Nothing' is unstable.

Natural states require something, in fact a universe which is empty would require supernatural intervention. Only constant intervention from a God would maintain a state of nothingness.

Your debating skills are appauling, you claim something cannot come from nothing, yet claim God came from nothing. Make your mind up!

It is obvious that if you have nothing then you can create nothing.


Is it?

Is it obvious? Of course. For example if I wanted to build a car I could not do it out of nothing. That would be impossible for a mere human to do. Therefore it is very clear that unless you have something to begin within you cannot create anything. God on the other hand is a supernatural all powerful God. So He was very much able to create the Universe and humans. That wasn’t a problem for God.

Define nothing? What are its properties? If it has properties, then it is no longer 'nothing'. If God is the answer, then why is there God rather than nothing?

What I’m saying is that before God did His work of Creation the Earth didn’t exist. There was nothing there. The Bible makes this very clear: “GENESIS 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void..” The word void means:

An empty area or space. The state of nonexistence. Containing nothing.

So for God to create the Earth He had to create it out of nothing, but that was not a problem for a supernatural all powerful God.

Since nothing is as simple as something gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would very likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated. Frank Wilczek answers the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question. 'Nothing' is unstable.

Natural states require something, in fact a universe which is empty would require supernatural intervention. Only constant intervention from a God would maintain a state of nothingness.

Read the first 3 verses of the Bible. The Bible confirms what you have said there. God existed before the creation of the Earth so God would have been around to provide constant intervention to maintain a state of nothingness.

Your debating skills are appauling, you claim something cannot come from nothing, yet claim God came from nothing. Make your mind up!

I didn’t claim God came from nothing. God has always existed. Because He has always existed He doesn’t need creating and certainly not creating out of nothing. My point all along is that mere humans can’t create something out of nothing. If I want to build a car or bake a muffin I need parts or ingredients. If I lack the parts or ingredients then it is impossible for me to build a car or bake a muffin. Likewise in the natural world I cannot see how the world came into existence all by itself. For me it makes more sense that God was involved and that He created the Earth.

If you reject God and don’t believe He created the Earth and think the universe began with the big bang, can you explain where the first spark for the big bang came from?

Liam, here are the questions I’m still waiting for you to answer:

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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.

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional gene or protein – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

Of course. For example if I wanted to build a car I could not do it out
of nothing. That would be impossible for a mere human to do. Therefore
it is very clear that unless you have something to begin within you
cannot create anything. God on the other hand is a supernatural all
powerful God. So He was very much able to create the Universe and
humans. That wasn’t a problem for God.

We are not talking about you making anything out of nothing, were talking about NATURE. There are quite a lot of things you cannot do, thinking is one of them.

The bible is not evidence, just because it says something does not make it true!

Stop acting like a retard!!

P.S. I won't answer your questions (although I would have liked to) simply because you didn't answer mine!

I didn’t claim God came from nothing. God has always existed.

Prove it?

Dave, why on earth does it take you so long to reply?

We are not talking about you making anything out of nothing, were talking about NATURE. There are quite a lot of things you cannot do, thinking is one of them.

Yeh I know we were talking about nature. I was making the point that humans can’t create something out of nothing and likewise I cannot see how the world came into existence all by itself. This leads me to believe that a supernatural external source was involved and that was God.

The bible is not evidence, just because it says something does not make it true!

Well the Bible is a very reliable book. Take the following verse:

Isaiah 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The Bible got it right about the Earth being round and not flat.

After I set out to refute Christianity intellectually and couldn't, I came to the conclusion the Bible was true and Jesus Christ was God's Son. - Josh McDowell

I didn’t claim God came from nothing. God has always existed.


Prove it?

Well for a start if God didn’t exist before the Earth came into being then it would not have been God who was responsible for the Earth coming into existence. As the natural world showcases many examples of complex design we can conclude that the designer exists and therefore He must have existed before the Earth was created otherwise He couldn’t have designed and created it. The Designer is God. The human body is amazingly complex. The idea that the human body evolved to its current state of complexity over time is something I find very difficult to believe, especially considering I’m still waiting to hear a good explanation as to how single-celled organisms became multi-celled. If God does not exist I would expect there to be far less examples of complex design in nature. In fact if God did not exist I would be stunned and surprised that humans exist at all considering how complex a human being is.

Take a scrap yard full of metal. There is more chance of that metal being turned into a fully working jumbo jet if a plane manufacter sent employees there to use the metal to make a plane than if the scrap yard was left to its own devices. Likewise in nature there is far more chance that humans would exist if created by God than if God did not exist and the natural world was left to its own devices.

Therefore I believe God existed before the Earth was created and He created the Earth.

Dave, why on earth does it take you so long to reply?

Because sometimes I like to think through my replies before posting them.

Liam, here are the questions I’m still waiting for you to answer:

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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.

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional gene or protein – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

Just because you find something difficult to understand something does not mean it is false! It's called the argument from ignorance!

As for your bible being reliable, have you forgotten my previous posts showing the bible to be flawed? And you point about the ROUND Earth, the bible actually says 'circle' A circle is not a sphere, but rather a disc. Your bible is wrong!

As the natural world showcases many examples of complex design we can
conclude that the designer exists and therefore He must have existed
before the Earth was created otherwise He couldn’t have designed and
created it. The Designer is God.

Where is your evidence?

As the natural world showcases many examples of complex design we can
conclude that the designer exists and therefore He must have existed
before the Earth was created otherwise He couldn’t have designed and
created it. The Designer is God.


Where is your evidence?

The woodpecker, the human body and the flagellum all showcase design in nature. The woodpecker for example has a tongue that curls back up around its skull, that tongue ends in a barb and the woodpecker has a thick skull with relatively spongy bone to cushion the brain. All of these 3 things has to be in place otherwise the woodpecker could not survive. If there was no protection for the brain the woodpecker would kill itself by bashing its head off the tree too many times. Therefore for the woodpecker to survive all these things have to be in place at the same time. What is the chance that all of these things would have evolved at the same time? Hardly likely, therefore if the woodpecker was not designed and created by God in the way that we see it today, then I would expect all the woodpeckers to have died out. Therefore the woodpecker alone proves that there is design in nature which proves there was a designer and that designer was God. Liam, can you show me one example of a creature that evolved at least 3 separate things (all required for survival) at the same time?

PSALMS 19
1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

There is a conscience in man; therefore there is a God in heaven.

Ezekiel Hopkins
A Puritan Golden Treasury, compiled by I.D.E. Thomas, by permission of Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA. 2000, p. 27.

Every effect has a cause; there cannot be an infinite regress of finite causes; therefore, there must be an uncaused cause or necessary being; this being is God (The Cosmological Argument, proponents- Aquinas).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 36.

There is observable order or design in the world that cannot be attributed to the object itself; this observable order argues for an intelligent being who established this order; this being is God (The Teleological Argument, proponents- Aquinas).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 36.

All men possess a moral impulse or categorical (moral) imperative. Since this morality is not always rewarded in this life, there must be some basis or reason for moral behavior that is beyond this life. This implies the existence of immorality, ultimate judgment, and a God who establishes and supports morality by rewarding good and punishing evil (The Anthropological (Moral) Argument, proponents- Kant).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 37.

Man has an idea of an infinite and perfect being. Existence is a necessary part of perfection. (Therefore) an infinite and perfect being exists, since the very concept of perfection requires existence (The Ontological Argument, proponents- Anselm).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 37.

Every normal person is born with the idea of God implanted in his mind, though it is suppressed in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18 ). As the child grows into adulthood, this idea becomes clearer. Critical experiences in the course of life may make this idea come alive (The Argument that God is an Innate Idea, proponents- Augustine, C. Hodge, Calvin).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 34.

All people believe that something is true. If God is the God of truth and the true God, then God is truth. This Truth (capital T) is the context for all other truth. Therefore the existence of truth implies the existence of Truth, which implies the existence of God (The Argument from Truth, proponents- Augustine, A. Strong).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 35.

Man is restless. He has a vague longing for blessedness. This longing was given by God, for man is restless until he rests in God. The presence of this longing is an indirect proof of God existence (The Argument from Blessedness, proponents- Augustine, Aquinas).

H. Wayne House
Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Zondervan, 1992, p. 35.

Liam, here are the questions I’m still waiting for you to answer:

Liam, please answer this: Are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? If you are closed to the possibility that God exists then I could post thousands of words about God’s existence and you would reject it all and say I’ve yet to provide proof for existence of God and that I’ve lost the debate. But if your open to the possibility that God might exist, then you should at least be able to tell me what kind of evidence (and how much of it) you require to be convinced of the existence of God. So, are you open or closed to the possibility that God might exist? Well what would it take for me to prove to you that God exists?

Can you explain how the woodpecker evolved? And please do not say yes without actually giving me the answer. And when you’re done answering that, you can try and answer this question:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

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?

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.

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

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?

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

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional gene or protein – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

Wheres the evidence?