Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Rather simple, those with even a minor resemblance to a leaf are less likely to be predated upon.

How would they get to even minorly resemble a leaf, let alone perfectly resemble one? You take a lot for granted IMO.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje I'm honestly not understanding your beliefs. If these insects were 'designed for survival', does that mean you believe that predator/prey food chains were in the garden of Eden? And if not, when were they 'designed'?

Adaptation to new circumstances is programmed into all living things. Once the first humans left the protective care of their Creator, God's adversary was left in charge of this world to be the god that he wanted to become. We have no idea how extensive his intrusion is, but nothing in this world is the way the Creator purposed for it to be.

All we have is the promise of the future, as we have scant knowledge of all the details of the past. (Isaiah 65:17-25)

If God says that there will be no "harm or ruin" in the world to come.....I believe him. (2 Peter 3:13)
You can believe whatever you like.

 

[Olinda]

Adaptation to new circumstances is programmed into all living things. Once the first humans left the protective care of their Creator, God's adversary was left in charge of this world to be the god that he wanted to become. We have no idea how extensive his intrusion is, but nothing in this world is the way the Creator purposed for it to be.

So the 'design' simply consists of 'programming for adaption to new circumstances'? You know that sounds a lot like natural selection to me.

You can believe whatever you like.

Thanks so much, no need to repeat it so often though.

 

[Deeje]

So the 'design' simply consists of 'programming for adaption to new circumstances'? You know that sounds a lot like natural selection to me.

Sounds nothing like natural selection to me. Intelligence programmed adaptation....evolution does not involve intelligence or planning, either in its method or its result. It's just a series of very fortunate accidents........I worry about the intelligence of its believers though, just as they worry about ours. I know which scenario makes more sense to me.

 

[Olinda]

Sounds nothing like natural selection to me. Intelligence programmed adaptation....evolution does not involve intelligence or planning, either in its method or its result. It's just a series of very fortunate accidents.

You have been told many times that natural selection is not accidental. If the fittest for survival live longer and breed more, they will prevail and continue to change to adapt to circumstances. You have never provided any support for the notion that planning or intelligence was required.

.......I worry about the intelligence of its believers though, just as they worry about ours. I know which scenario makes more sense to me.

The one that keeps you safe in your belief, safe from shunning and safe in the expectation of eternal life that would be denied to billions of us. Not really a surprise.

However, please be aware that the Theory of evolution is not a belief of mine. Rather, your arguments against it are not credible to me.

 

[Deeje]

You have been told many times that natural selection is not accidental.

Been told by whom? Anyone I think has an unbiased viewpoint? "Natural selection did it" is science's alternative to "God did it". Its a belief based on adaptation. Adaptation is not evolution IMO.

If the fittest for survival live longer and breed more, they will prevail and continue to change to adapt to circumstances.

Natural selection in no way explains the perfect camouflage of the creatures I posted in the last video. How do creatures get to resemble autumn leaves so perfectly by natural selection? That this level of camouflage can be achieved without intelligent direction, to me is absurd.

Can YOU spot them? Incredible photographs of camouflage animals show nature's ability to blend in with its surroundings | Daily Mail Online

You have never provided any support for the notion that planning or intelligence was required.

That is like saying I can walk into an art gallery and because I have never met the artist I can assume that he doesn't exist even though his signature is on every piece. All that paint just jumped onto those canvases with the signature brush strokes that the artist is famous for, with no planning or forethought at all. It's a dumb scenario IMO. Creations require a Creator.

Where deliberate design is obvious, there is always a designer. If something is deliberate, it denotes intent, which requires intelligence. That is what is logical to me. I have no idea what is logical to you.

The one that keeps you safe in your belief, safe from shunning and safe in the expectation of eternal life that would be denied to billions of us. Not really a surprise.

Oh please.....condescension is really saying way more about you than it does about me.

However, please be aware that the Theory of evolution is not a belief of mine.

well, you could have fooled me.......seems to me that you defend it quite rigorously for someone who doesn't believe it.

Rather, your arguments against it are not credible to me.

Its not my job to convince anyone of anything......if my arguments are not credible to you....then why bother even reading my posts? Have you got nothing better to do?

If your own arguments are more credible to you...then you are welcome to them.

 

[gnostic]

That is like saying I can walk into an art gallery and because I have never met the artist I can assume that he doesn't exist even though his signature is on every piece. All that paint just jumped onto those canvases with the signature brush strokes that the artist is famous for, with no planning or forethought at all. It's a dumb scenario IMO. Creations require a Creator.

If the artist is contemporary and alive, you can meet him or her, and you have the money, you can commission the artist to paint your portrait.

The same cannot be said about this non-existing Creator of yours.

The comparison is pathetically weak. You cannot compare a human artist with a deity, because the artist can be alive and contemporary, and that's you can socially interact with the artist, to talk to the artist, and the artist can reply...which is something your God cannot do.

The dumb scenario is yours and the absurdity is your belief in an invisible magic man.

 

[Olinda]

Been told by whom? Anyone I think has an unbiased viewpoint?

Perhaps we should just focus on the evidence rather than what bias we think a poster has?

"Natural selection did it" is science's alternative to "God did it". Its a belief based on adaptation

Science has no opinion about God and therefore does not need to present an alternative. Natural selection is a non-accidental mechanism that has been observed many times, and allows individuals better adapted to their environment to flourish at the expense of those less well adapted. So, not a belief nor accidental.

Adaptation is not evolution IMO.

Then could you please explain the difference?

Natural selection in no way explains the perfect camouflage of the creatures I posted in the last video.

Natural selection means that those insects that best mimic the leaves are less often eaten and have more offspring. And of those offspring, the best adapted are again longer lived and leave more offspring. And so on. Simple.

And I really liked the pic of the tawny frogmouth in your link. We used to have them on the farm when I was a child!

That is what is logical to me. I have no idea what is logical to you.

Well it's logical to me to accept a theory such as the ToE which has a lot of evidence for it and none that contradicts it.

Oh please.....condescension is really saying way more about you than it does about me.

How is it condescension to point out that there are other factors in play than just the plausibility of the scenarios you mentioned?

well, you could have fooled me.......seems to me that you defend it quite rigorously for someone who doesn't believe it.

There is a difference between accepting something with a strong or overwhelming likelihood and a belief.

Its not my job to convince anyone of anything......if my arguments are not credible to you....then why bother even reading my posts? Have you got nothing better to do?

Because I don't like misrepresentation of science, even when it's done with sincere belief and good intentions.

 

[Deeje]

If the artist is contemporary and alive, you can meet him or her, and you have the money, you can commission the artist to paint your portrait.

The same cannot be said about this non-existing Creator of yours.

He gave some of us the skills to paint our own portraits.....but I can hardly commission Leonardo or Michelangelo now can I? They are long dead so I have never met them, yet I am very familiar with their work.

The Creator has exhibited his works for millenniums, wowing people with his awesome masterpieces....but only in the last couple of centuries with advances in "scientific study" have humans decided to consider themselves so clever that they don't need him anymore.
I guess we'll have to wait and see who is clever and who is not.

The comparison is pathetically weak. You cannot compare a human artist with a deity, because the artist can be alive and contemporary, and if that's you socially interact with the artist, to talk to the artist, and the artist can reply...which is something your God cannot do.

The dumb scenario is yours and the absurdity is your belief in an invisible magic man.

I sometimes have to wonder how old you are.....? Your responses can be incredibly immature....not what I would expect from an adult. I don't believe in an invisible magic man and never have.

But, hey....despite their age, I believe that evolutionists are going to look pretty silly if he shows up some day soon and asks why they discredited his work.......

What will you say then, I wonder?

 

[Deeje]

Perhaps we should just focus on the evidence rather than what bias we think a poster has?

And you honestly believe that bias has no role in this endless debate? There is no "evidence" for macro-evolution......there never was. There is only biased conclusions drawn from interpretation of evidence. The interpretation assumes that evolution happened, but it is not provable by any scientific method.

There is evidence for adaptation, which is confined to minor changes in one species, mostly of a cosmetic nature or an adaptation to digest or harvest things from different food sources. It is never responsible for one creature morphing into another. That has never been seen.

Natural selection is a non-accidental mechanism that has been observed many times, and allows individuals better adapted to their environment to flourish at the expense of those less well adapted. So, not a belief nor accidental.

Natural selection does not explain why any creature would look like a leaf in the first place, let alone autumn leaves of different colors. If it was advantageous to look like a leaf, how did they organize that from the beginning? How did they decide what color they wanted to be?

Then could you please explain the difference?

I have...all the way through this thread. Adaptation is not proof of macro-evolution, no matter how often scientists "suggest" that it is. Macro-evolution has never been observed.....it is assumed.

Natural selection means that those insects that best mimic the leaves are less often eaten and have more offspring. And of those offspring, the best adapted are again longer lived and leave more offspring. And so on. Simple.

Tell me why any creature without conscious thought or design capability can mimic anything? It doesn't even know what it looks like. This is a fairy story, way more far fetched than belief in an Intelligent Designer.

Well it's logical to me to accept a theory such as the ToE which has a lot of evidence for it and none that contradicts it.

If you choose to believe in what pretends to be evidence for the ToE, that is your prerogative. No one can tell you what to believe. That has to come from your own heart.

There is a difference between accepting something with a strong or overwhelming likelihood and a belief.

Funny, but I have a strong belief in the overwhelming likelihood that there is a very talented and creative Designer whose signature is on everything I see. The likelihood of this all coming about by chance is absolute zero in my estimations.
Like I said, you do a great job of defending what demeans the Creator just because men thought they were more intelligent than God.

Because I don't like misrepresentation of science, even when it's done with sincere belief and good intentions.

I don't like misrepresentations either....hence the reason for this thread. I want people to see that science hasn't got anything close to conclusive proof that evolution ever took place. All they have are educated guesses......but you knew that, right?

 

[metis]

There is no "evidence" for macro-evolution......there never was.

There's far more evidence for "macro-evolution" than there is for a creator-god, and yet you accept the latter. The fossil evidence simply cannot be explained in terms of just "micro-evolution", nor is there one shred of evidence to suggest that one deity made all.

Therefore, before demanding more evidence from "evolutionists", first establish evidence that a creator-god created everything? You can't use the Bible for that supposed evidence since the author of Genesis couldn't have been there at "creation", nor is there any evidence whatsoever that a god authored Genesis. There's myriads of evidence to support science, there's nothing that supports a deified universe.

Now, please no song & dance, OK?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How would they get to even minorly resemble a leaf, let alone perfectly resemble one? You take a lot for granted IMO.

Your question doesn't make any sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you honestly believe that bias has no role in this endless debate? There is no "evidence" for macro-evolution......there never was. There is only biased conclusions drawn from interpretation of evidence. The interpretation assumes that evolution happened, but it is not provable by any scientific method.

False. There is much evidence for evolution – both micro and macro. They are the same thing, with the only difference being time. The fact that you refuse to recognize it doesn’t diminish that.

There is no scientific conspiracy. All of the scientists that have been carrying out studies and writing papers all over the world for the last 150+ years haven’t been conspiring with each other to foist falsehoods upon us all to further some sinister agenda. The truly amazing part of it all is that they actually all produced massive amounts of evidence that pointed to the reality of biological evolution and the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Scientists independently working in the fields of chemistry, botany, paleontology, paleobotany, biology, physics, geology, zoology, ecology, etc., all somehow independently produced evidence that when taken together, points to the reality of evolution. That should tell you something about the robustness of the evidence. Contrary to your assertions, adherence to the scientific method has given us a very solid scientific theory that is backed up by mountains of evidence. There is a lot of long, hard work involved that goes far beyond “Look at the pretty frog, I can’t figure out how it came to be so I’m going to credit the specific god I already believe in.” That provides us with no explanation and no opportunity for further inquiry and study.

But I’ve said it several times and I’ll say it again: If you have evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution, please present it. Submit it to a journal for peer review and you will become famous for taking down the theory of evolution. If there is actually no evidence for the theory, then this should be incredibly easy. Perhaps you should wonder why nobody has managed to do this yet.

And the thing is, even if you could manage to falsify evolution, you wouldn’t be one single step closer to confirming your own hypothesis about the existence of god(s). You would still need to provide scientific evidence of that – something that consists of much more than some pretty pictures you found on the internet.

There is evidence for adaptation, which is confined to minor changes in one species, mostly of a cosmetic nature or an adaptation to digest or harvest things from different food sources. It is never responsible for one creature morphing into another. That has never been seen.

For the 112th time, evolution does NOT state or suggest that any creature morphs into another. Nobody that understands evolution expects to see such a thing. The fact that you keep suggesting we should see such a thing, if evolution were true, only exposes the fact that you still don’t understand it.

Natural selection does not explain why any creature would look like a leaf in the first place, let alone autumn leaves of different colors. If it was advantageous to look like a leaf, how did they organize that from the beginning? How did they decide what color they wanted to be?

Leaves don’t consciously organize themselves or make decisions about what they want to look like and evolution does not suggest as much. There is no “end goal” in evolution. The leaves who manage to survive their environmental pressures and reproduce are the ones that carry out their DNA.

Leaves are green due to the presence of chlorophyll (naturally leaves are yellow and orange). During the fall and winter months, trees don’t receive enough sunlight to produce food, so they stop producing chlorophyll. As the chlorophyll stops flowing, it is replaced by anthocyanins, which is red coloured, thus it causes the leaves to change colour. We don’t know this from following gods or holy texts; rather, we know this thanks to the hard work of scientists taking the time to study such things. Those biased scientists that bother you so much.

I have...all the way through this thread. Adaptation is not proof of macro-evolution, no matter how often scientists "suggest" that it is. Macro-evolution has never been observed.....it is assumed.

False.

Tell me why any creature without conscious thought or design capability can mimic anything? It doesn't even know what it looks like. This is a fairy story, way more far fetched than belief in an Intelligent Designer.

What makes you think other creatures don’t have conscious thought or design capability?

Sounds like you have some reading to do:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n4/full/ng.3260.html
Dynamics of mimicry evolution | Biological Journal of the Linnean Society | Oxford Academic
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7491/full/nature13112.html
Mimicry - Evolutionary Biology - Oxford Bibliographies

If you choose to believe in what pretends to be evidence for the ToE, that is your prerogative. No one can tell you what to believe. That has to come from your own heart.

I don’t think we choose our beliefs – we’re either convinced of something or we’re not. Some of us require evidence, others don’t. But I don’t think we can choose to believe in things. Do you think you could choose to believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

Regardless of what anybody believes, the theory of evolution is the best (and only) available scientific explanation that fits the available evidence. Same goes for gravity, heliocentrism and germ theory.

Funny, but I have a strong belief in the overwhelming likelihood that there is a very talented and creative Designer whose signature is on everything I see. The likelihood of this all coming about by chance is absolute zero in my estimations.

Arguments from incredulity aren’t convincing to me, nor are they logically sound.

It should be easy to demonstrate the existence of this “creative Designer,” if it’s so obvious. You should be able to demonstrate it in the same way that scientists have demonstrated evolution.

That still won’t get you where you want to be though, because if you are able to establish the existence of some kind of designer, you still haven’t come close to establishing that it is the very specific designer you believe in.

Like I said, you do a great job of defending what demeans the Creator just because men thought they were more intelligent than God.

You’re the one who apparently thinks that your God isn’t intelligent enough to have come up with evolution in the first place. It seems to me that you’re the one demeaning this supposed Creator.

Of course, I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate the existence of this Creator in some meaningful way.

I don't like misrepresentations either....hence the reason for this thread. I want people to see that science hasn't got anything close to conclusive proof that evolution ever took place. All they have are educated guesses......but you knew that, right?

Then it would be great if you would stop misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

There's far more evidence for "macro-evolution" than there is for a creator-god, and yet you accept the latter. The fossil evidence simply cannot be explained in terms of just "micro-evolution", nor is there one shred of evidence to suggest that one deity made all.

Therefore, before demanding more evidence from "evolutionists", first establish evidence that a creator-god created everything? You can't use the Bible for that supposed evidence since the author of Genesis couldn't have been there at "creation", nor is there any evidence whatsoever that a god authored Genesis. There's myriads of evidence to support science, there's nothing that supports a deified universe.

Now, please no song & dance, OK?

Metis, it has never been my intention to do a song and dance about anything. I just want the truth to be told.

I can see evidence for adaptation in scientific studies....these are small changes that are created by a mechanism that can only be compared to programming. Like instinct is a program that allows any species to perpetuate its "kind" without outside intervention. It is not a deliberate act on the part of any creature to change its color or the shape of its beak. Everything on this earth is designed to take care of itself. Adaptation ensures this. The "evidence" I have seen for macro-evolution is supposition...which is not provable fact. It assumes that if adaptation is a fact that they can take it way further than they can prove and assume that it is true. That means that the ToE is a belief......beliefs are not science. Its one belief system against another as far as I can see.

Look at the recycling that takes place in nature. This planet is a self-sufficient, self-sustaining 'spaceship', populated with living things, one of which the Creator designed to be caretakers of the rest. It started out so well.....

From my perspective, understanding what the Creator first purposed and why that was originally (but only temporarily) derailed, answers all the questions we may have about why there appears to be so little "evidence" for a God that does not show himself directly to us. Even if he did, humans would still want to exercise their free will at the expense of others. Until we recognize the Creator's right to set the standards for our existence, we will go on doing what "we" want to do until we have wrecked everything completely. Fortunately, God says he is going to intervene before we accomplish that. (Revelation 11:18) He is giving us enough rope......some of us will see the truth, change our course and avoid the noose.

Learning who we are in the 'pecking order' and why we need to observe the Creator's commands implicitly, is the lesson we are living. At the end of the day, we are proving how hopeless we are at determining our own course in opposition to him. Look around you at the situation the world is in and ask yourself how much longer we will continue to destroy the delicate system that was put in place to ensure the survival and security of all living things, that are at the mercy of our invariably selfish decisions.

We have interfered with every process that the Creator designed to be self-sustaining. We have polluted everything we eat drink and breathe. Our clever technology has become so addictive that we are now experiencing the fallout in radiation induced brain cancers, an increasing inability of our youth to communicate verbally with one another, memory issues, not only in older people, but even in children. How much is our gadgetry defining the way we live, and what is it doing to families? How much has the abandonment of God's moral code contributed to lifestyles that are destroying the traditional family unit?

If we cannot control our own actions or the actions of others....what will change? We are on a collision course with irreparable consequences we have created for ourselves. God has at least promised to intervene....what promises of man give us any hope for a better future?

 

[Deeje]

Your question doesn't make any sense.

There is no intelligent answer, so any wonder it makes no sense to you. How would creatures that have evolved in an environment similar to one another, where one becomes a replica of a leaf, whilst others look nothing like one? Examine the creatures and see that their mimicry is no accident of nature.....artists mimic nature with a brush. No canvas can evolve a photographic imitation of nature without intelligent direction...can they?

 

[Deeje]

False. There is much evidence for evolution – both micro and macro. They are the same thing, with the only difference being time. The fact that you refuse to recognize it doesn’t diminish that.

Back up what you say with proof. Show us the evidence that adaptation and macro-evolution are the same thing.

 

[Deeje]

Leaves don’t consciously organize themselves or make decisions about what they want to look like and evolution does not suggest as much. There is no “end goal” in evolution. The leaves who manage to survive their environmental pressures and reproduce are the ones that carry out their DNA.

Are you serious? The end goal is obvious when you observe the mimicry that is designed to facilitate the security of the ones who use camouflage to avoid predators.

Leaves are green due to the presence of chlorophyll (naturally leaves are yellow and orange). During the fall and winter months, trees don’t receive enough sunlight to produce food, so they stop producing chlorophyll. As the chlorophyll stops flowing, it is replaced by anthocyanins, which is red coloured, thus it causes the leaves to change colour. We don’t know this from following gods or holy texts; rather, we know this thanks to the hard work of scientists taking the time to study such things. Those biased scientists that bother you so much.

Now explain how a creature ends up resembling a leaf so perfectly when no such process takes place in their biology.

 

[metis]

Metis, it has never been my intention to do a song and dance about anything. I just want the truth to be told.

I can see evidence for adaptation in scientific studies....these are small changes that are created by a mechanism that can only be compared to programming. Like instinct is a program that allows any species to perpetuate its "kind" without outside intervention. It is not a deliberate act on the part of any creature to change its color or the shape of its beak. Everything on this earth is designed to take care of itself. Adaptation ensures this. The "evidence" I have seen for macro-evolution is supposition...which is not provable fact. It assumes that if adaptation is a fact that they can take it way further than they can prove and assume that it is true. That means that the ToE is a belief......beliefs are not science. Its one belief system against another as far as I can see.

Look at the recycling that takes place in nature. This planet is a self-sufficient, self-sustaining 'spaceship', populated with living things, one of which the Creator designed to be caretakers of the rest. It started out so well.....

From my perspective, understanding what the Creator first purposed and why that was originally (but only temporarily) derailed, answers all the questions we may have about why there appears to be so little "evidence" for a God that does not show himself directly to us. Even if he did, humans would still want to exercise their free will at the expense of others. Until we recognize the Creator's right to set the standards for our existence, we will go on doing what "we" want to do until we have wrecked everything completely. Fortunately, God says he is going to intervene before we accomplish that. (Revelation 11:18) He is giving us enough rope......some of us will see the truth, change our course and avoid the noose.

Learning who we are in the 'pecking order' and why we need to observe the Creator's commands implicitly, is the lesson we are living. At the end of the day, we are proving how hopeless we are at determining our own course in opposition to him. Look around you at the situation the world is in and ask yourself how much longer we will continue to destroy the delicate system that was put in place to ensure the survival and security of all living things, that are at the mercy of our invariably selfish decisions.

We have interfered with every process that the Creator designed to be self-sustaining. We have polluted everything we eat drink and breathe. Our clever technology has become so addictive that we are now experiencing the fallout in radiation induced brain cancers, an increasing inability of our youth to communicate verbally with one another, memory issues, not only in older people, but even in children. How much is our gadgetry defining the way we live, and what is it doing to families? How much has the abandonment of God's moral code contributed to lifestyles that are destroying the traditional family unit?

If we cannot control our own actions or the actions of others....what will change? We are on a collision course with irreparable consequences we have created for ourselves. God has at least promised to intervene....what promises of man give us any hope for a better future?

But all the above is just more song & dance because you really offer no evidence-- period. Just because X happened does not mean that a god or gods caused it. Just because you are reading my post doesn't mean that a god wrote it.

Secondly, you offer not one shred of evidence that the universe was the creation of one god versus more than one.

Thirdly you produce not one shred of evidence that even if it were to be just one god that it is the same god you worship.

So, maybe try again, but this time please deal directly with the above direct questions and answer them with direct answers.

BTW, could you give the website for the emojies that you gave me before because I'm using a different computer and forgot to copy the previous address. Thanks in advance.

 

[Deeje]

For the 112th time, evolution does NOT state or suggest that any creature morphs into another. Nobody that understands evolution expects to see such a thing. The fact that you keep suggesting we should see such a thing, if evolution were true, only exposes the fact that you still don’t understand it.

But evolution teaches that all life evolved from single celled organisms and transformed themselves into all living things both past and present. You think that does not involve morphing? I have see many examples of morphing presented as evidence of evolution......look at whale evolution as a classic example.......from small land animals to gigantic sea creature, through morphing.

What makes you think other creatures don’t have conscious thought or design capability?

Sounds like you have some reading to do:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n4/full/ng.3260.html
Dynamics of mimicry evolution | Biological Journal of the Linnean Society | Oxford Academic
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7491/full/nature13112.html
Mimicry - Evolutionary Biology - Oxford Bibliographies

I have read what I could of those links, but none of them really explain in simple terms, anything about how an insect could 'morph' into a leaf of exactly the right color in the first place. How does a plant know to mimic a female wasp by producing a replica of it on the cusp of its flower, and also give off the right pheromone to attract a male pollinator? You really think that is just an accident? You all take so much for granted.

 

[Deeje]

But all the above is just more song & dance because you really offer no evidence-- period. Just because X happened does not mean that a god or gods caused it. Just because you are reading my post doesn't mean that a god wrote it.

I know that you are not a god metis......

My beliefs are the result of many years of careful study......just as yours no doubt have been. The difference between you and me is that I found my truth and have stuck to it without wavering for over 45 years, whereas you seem to have shifted between beliefs as though you were not really sure of any of them. Was there no conviction for you at any stage?

I have no doubts about what I believe and never did.....I am totally convinced of its validity and knew in my gut that I had found what I was looking for all my life. For the first time I had answers to all my questions. That was truly liberating.

My connection to my God is personal. I have all the evidence I need to know that he is real and that his word is the best wisdom that humans could ever follow. When I follow his recommendations, things just work out as they should. When things go wrong, as they inevitably will at times, implementing the Bible's advice makes everything better. It never makes a bad situation worse. I feel God's hand in my life and have since I was a child.

Secondly, you offer not one shred of evidence that the universe was the creation of one god versus more than one.

I believe that the evidence is all around us that creation was intelligently designed and the Bible says that two individuals were involved in the process.......but some will remain unconvinced no matter how much evidence you supply. It is hearts that respond to the truth, not just minds. God says that he is involved in that process as well. (John 6:44)

Thirdly you produce not one shred of evidence that even if it were to be just one god that it is the same god you worship.

That is called faith. I have bucket loads of it, built up over time into an impenetrable wall. There is nothing of an external nature that can separate me from my Creator or make him any less than what what he is in my heart. He is someone I love and respect above all others. He has earned that place for me just by my own experiences.

So, maybe try again, but this time please deal directly with the above direct questions and answer them with direct answers.

I have no more direct evidence for my Creator than you do for macro-evolution....so what is the point?
Faith does not require "evidence" that is above and beyond what we already see all around us. Its is enough for millions of us, but it will never be enough for billions more. Who knows why? It is what separates us.

BTW, could you give the website for the emojies that you gave me before because I'm using a different computer and forgot to copy the previous address. Thanks in advance.

Free Smileys, Emoticons, Emojis, to use in forums, websites / weblogs and mobile apps | Page 1

No worries.....