The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, keep going

One of the key requirements to even be able to claim to have evidence is that one first must have a testable hypothesis. Do you understand that? In other words one must risk one's beliefs by putting them to the test.

 

[Rapture Era]

One of the key requirements to even be able to claim to have evidence is that one first must have a testable hypothesis. Do you understand that? In other words one must risk one's beliefs by putting them to the test.

Yup keep going

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup keep going

Therefore when presented with an observation the only valid question in determining whether it is evidence of not is asking whether it supports or opposes that hypothesis. One cannot deny a pattern of rising temperature as evidence for AGW for example. It is what is predicted by the hypothesis and it is what we observe.

 

[Rapture Era]

Therefore when presented with an observation the only valid question in determining whether it is evidence of not is asking whether it supports or opposes that hypothesis. One cannot deny a pattern of rising temperature as evidence for AGW for example. It is what is predicted by the hypothesis and it is what we observe.

You know SZ, I am being very patient with you, get to the point. How does the Darwinian evolutionary theory fit the scientific method that you have established as your standard of truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know SZ, I am being very patient with you, get to the point. How does the Darwinian evolutionary theory fit the scientific method that you have established as your standard of truth?

We are getting there. Your posts made it clear that you did not understand this.

Also science has advanced past Darwinian evolution. He got many of the basics correct but had no understanding of how traits were passed on. The Modern Synthesis combines Darwinian evolution with genetics.

But moving on. Darwin's theory of evolution is a testable theory. It also made predictions on what should be found if his theory is correct. Do you understand this?

 

[Rapture Era]

We are getting there. Your posts made it clear that you did not understand this.

Also science has advanced past Darwinian evolution. He got many of the basics correct but had no understanding of how traits were passed on. The Modern Synthesis combines Darwinian evolution with genetics.

But moving on. Darwin's theory of evolution is a testable theory. It also made predictions on what should be found if his theory is correct. Do you understand this?

You know what dude, I've had a long day and I'm tired. Cut the crap, tell me how Darwinian or any other version you like of evolution you think is the correct version today, and how it reconciles with the scientific method to convince you it's even possible let alone probable. I'll respond tomorrow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know what dude, I've had a long day and I'm tired. Cut the crap, tell me how Darwinian or any other version you like of evolution you think is the correct version today, and how it reconciles with the scientific method to convince you it's even possible let alone probable. I'll respond tomorrow.

Rudeness and ignorance is a bad combination. And now it appears that you have not been paying attention. We have to go over this step by step. Please respond to my previous post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is the so-called intellectual answers! This is what the evolutionists are embarrassed by! All talk and nothing to back up their claims! Why? They have nothing! All you do is make false accusations and back it it up with nothing! Whats your best left hook for believing what you do? It's your time to shine so give us your best hit!

+200.000 peer reviewed papers on evolution (not even counting the papers indirectly linked to evolution), disagree with your nonsense that all that biologists have are a bunch of claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know what dude, I've had a long day and I'm tired. Cut the crap, tell me how Darwinian or any other version you like of evolution you think is the correct version today, and how it reconciles with the scientific method to convince you it's even possible let alone probable. I'll respond tomorrow.

Evolution predicts nested hierarchies.
When we study genetics, anatomy etc, nested hierarchies is exactly what we find.

Moreover, the pattern of these hierarchies match when coming at them from different angles.
The nested hierarchy that emerges from comparative anatomy, matches the nested hierarchy that emerges from comparative genetics.

When you have multiple independent lines of evidence converging on the same answer, that's when you have a solid theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution predicts nested hierarchies.
When we study genetics, anatomy etc, nested hierarchies is exactly what we find.

Moreover, the pattern of these hierarchies match when coming at them from different angles.
The nested hierarchy that emerges from comparative anatomy, matches the nested hierarchy that emerges from comparative genetics.

When you have multiple independent lines of evidence converging on the same answer, that's when you have a solid theory.

I don't think that will do any good. But we will see. He seems to think he understands the basics I went over. Tomorrow, or later today, we will see if he has a clue or not.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Eye witness testimony. Take a look at the video link that the former atheist and cold case detective J. Warner Wallace said. If you do maybe you can better understand the case for old written records of eyewitness testimony, after all he is a COLD CASE DETECTIVE!

PS Your first line in your post/response to me is like this cartoon below...

As I have stated before, huff, puff, avoid and bluff, seems to be your motto. Are there any other tricks you can do, that can't be anticipated? Can't you address anything directly, without more site deflections?

We don't know who the authors of the gospels were. They were all anonymous and far too old to have written the Gospels. Their names were only later added in the 2nd century, as being the authors of the Gospels in the New Testament. This would have been 50 years after the gospels were written, and up to 120 years after the Resurrection of Christ. Most Religious Scholars believes that the Gospels were written by a Jewish religious student. In Mark Jesus is not interested in talking about Himself at all. But in John, he ONLY talks about Himself and His Divinity. This creates an historical problem. Why is Jesus's claims of divinity only described in the last Book of the Gospels? Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke think Jesus claims of divinity were not important enough to even mention? Many Religious scholars believe that all the Gospels were written by a Jewish Religious student. All we know for certain, is that the Bible is a book of fiction, stories, superstitions, and fables. And, that it was written, compiled, edited, contracted, interpreted, and revised by man, not by God. We know for certain that many of the stories written in the Bible, were taken almost word for word, from stories written in other books that predate the Bible. We know that the Bible was written to provide the only science to the ignorant(ancient myths and legends), to allay their fear of death, to reflect the history and the people of the time, to control how the people think and behave, and to claim that it is the only purpose for their lives. So, again, in your own words, what evidence can you deposit, that can demonstrates that at least one of the historical Jesus was the Son of a God? Or will you simply keep referring me to another creation listed site? You really need to read the Bible yourself, before listening to those who claim they have.

Are you saying that my opening statement was only gibberish to you? I suppose when "God did it all" is your only mantra, everything else must sound like utter gibberish to you. I also suspect that the bar for critical thinking will be inversely proportional to what you call gibberish. The more you critically think, the less things sound like gibberish. Simply put, "God did it", was not the claim of any of the videos I presented. But by directing me to an internet site/video, and citing this silly cartoon to speak for you, does certainly validate my claim that you can't speak for yourself. Not once do you refute, contrast, or address the logic or the videos I post. The videos were all trying to offer a rational explanation, by demonstrating how the facts and evidence available, could be involved in the origin of the first life.They don't simply try to obfuscate or diminish the reliability of the scientific method of inquiry. It is almost as if you simply don't want it to be so. Maybe you can add your own objective evidence to support your own rational hypothesis? Somehow, I doubt you can.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think that will do any good. But we will see. He seems to think he understands the basics I went over. Tomorrow, or later today, we will see if he has a clue or not.

I can answer that.

It won't do any good.
Nothing will. Clearly his/her mind is made up.
Any science that disagrees, is by definition wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dont use THAT kind! Ghost money is much cheaper.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gho..._AUIDigB&biw=729&bih=402#imgrc=j1oiFGn-HUTY9M:

I'm in for sure with that! Good find - you may have saved my soul.

 

[Audie]

I'm in for sure with that! Good find - you may have saved my soul.

Haha I did not find it, I grew up with it.

But anyway, it is much cheaper than burning
even Canadian money. You can even do
cars and luxury bags, as appropriate.

 

[Audie]

As I have stated before, huff, puff, avoid and bluff, seems to be your motto. Are there any other tricks you can do, that can't be anticipated? Can't you address anything directly, without more site deflections?

We don't know who the authors of the gospels were. They were all anonymous and far too old to have written the Gospels. Their names were only later added in the 2nd century, as being the authors of the Gospels in the New Testament. This would have been 50 years after the gospels were written, and up to 120 years after the Resurrection of Christ. Most Religious Scholars believes that the Gospels were written by a Jewish religious student. In Mark Jesus is not interested in talking about Himself at all. But in John, he ONLY talks about Himself and His Divinity. This creates an historical problem. Why is Jesus's claims of divinity only described in the last Book of the Gospels? Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke think Jesus claims of divinity were not important enough to even mention? Many Religious scholars believe that all the Gospels were written by a Jewish Religious student. All we know for certain, is that the Bible is a book of fiction, stories, superstitions, and fables. And, that it was written, compiled, edited, contracted, interpreted, and revised by man, not by God. We know for certain that many of the stories written in the Bible, were taken almost word for word, from stories written in other books that predate the Bible. We know that the Bible was written to provide the only science to the ignorant(ancient myths and legends), to allay their fear of death, to reflect the history and the people of the time, to control how the people think and behave, and to claim that it is the only purpose for their lives. So, again, in your own words, what evidence can you deposit, that can demonstrates that at least one of the historical Jesus was the Son of a God? Or will you simply keep referring me to another creation listed site? You really need to read the Bible yourself, before listening to those who claim they have.

Are you saying that my opening statement was only gibberish to you? I suppose when "God did it all" is your only mantra, everything else must sound like utter gibberish to you. I also suspect that the bar for critical thinking will be inversely proportional to what you call gibberish. The more you critically think, the less things sound like gibberish. Simply put, "God did it", was not the claim of any of the videos I presented. But by directing me to an internet site/video, and citing this silly cartoon to speak for you, does certainly validate my claim that you can't speak for yourself. Not once do you refute, contrast, or address the logic or the videos I post. The videos were all trying to offer a rational explanation, by demonstrating how the facts and evidence available, could be involved in the origin of the first life.They don't simply try to obfuscate or diminish the reliability of the scientific method of inquiry. It is almost as if you simply don't want it to be so. Maybe you can add your own objective evidence to support your own rational hypothesis? Somehow, I doubt you can.

TE may I most respectfully (this time) implore
you to break up your solid blocks of text into
paragraphs?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Read his account, it will explain what you are asking.

Or you could just answer it, given that you've asserted that it is evidence for ..... something.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What’s interesting and typical in the three videos is that each one of them scream intelligence and order. Do you notice that? Assumptions and speculation are so overwhelming how can any reasonable person take it seriously? To sum up, oh, and by the way, in the second video, Darwin’s citations acknowledged his doubts of his theory which plagued him throughout his remaining years.

The evolutionist/naturalists are only trying to convince their side that the immense intelligence of an omnipotent creator, namely the living God of the Bible (must specify that) who is the author of life, is being circumvented by trying to make impossible origins by natural processes sound feasible!

Every time evolutionists try to explain our world and all life, they must use words like, could be, might have, if the early earths atmosphere or conditions were this or that, this might be possible for meaningless, purposeless matter to become intelligent through chemical processes to create the vast and incomprehensible information in cells to build organisms upward into viable life both male and female able to reproduce their own kind! You seriously are unable to see this?

Here is a fact you will deny because it doesn’t fit your baseless religion. It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife. Your last comment is beautiful!

“It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs.”

Let’s be clear here. We are talking about the context of the origin of life when you say “the reliability of science” The more science discovers, the more it must bend it’s knee to the reality of Intelligent Design and not some “Malfunction Junction” process. You continue, “So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.”

Not only did the God decide to tell us about his creation through the Genesis account, the very science you hold so dear validates, or as you say demonstrates the staggering intelligence we see in all life forms! The feeble attempts always being put forth from you guys for the origins of viable reproducible life never changes, it’s always full of false speculation and wishful thinking. The truth of Gods creation surrounds you and yet you are unable to comprehend it which is why you continue to make these meaningless statements. No amount of evidence or truth will be enough for you because you are quite honestly, exactly what you describe, just another flea biting the back of the elephant!
I'd be interested in your ability to discredit these scientific facts in a reasonable way.
Creation - Evolution

What scientific facts?

 

[Audie]

What scientific facts?

Maybe this?

Here is a fact..... It is impossible for life to spontaneously generate from nonlife.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I wouldnt expect any appeals to Heaven or Special Covenant. Two opposing world views, but "fallacious"? You dont know that for certain.

What poor logic? The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design. Which one of these three are more reasonable and logical to you? I like your analogy. The huge and mighty United States Military Forces are a great example as peace keepers, not war makers.

I’m really surprised you asked this question. Darwin admitted to having no way to defend his theory. The Cambrian Explosion is a great example of his doubts in his own words.
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence beneath the Upper Cambrian formations of vast piles of strata rich in fossils is very great.”
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

No, I believe that the hypothesized speculation by science to explain origins of life other than supernatural creation is lacking in vast proportions. You have to remember, supernatural creation by a transcendent being has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with a supernatural transcendent being creating as he chooses, and, you are a result of his creation as is everything else in the universe. He communicates this to us by saying "For what may be known about God is plain to them,because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…
He also communicated to us through the scriptures that "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Pretty simple really, he's telling us that all things in existence, physical and invisible exist through him and by him. As science discovers and continually discovers more and more, it is extremely reasonable and logical that it points to a transcendent designer.

Yes, all perspectives except Supernatural Creation, the one that makes the most sense.

We both have different worldviews. None of us were there to witness either Supernatural creation or Darwinian evolution. What we do have is physical evidence of our world, the laws that govern our world, and the vast amount of life from sea creatures to birds, to animals, to insects and human beings. Science cannot account for all of this except from speculation and hypotheses. The creator himself has communicated to us that what we witness all around us is here by his doing, and that is in the Genesis account. Now we can dialog back and forth, but, every person must decide for themselves which account best fits the data. It's my opinion by what we know, that the biblical account fits the data more reasonably.

I'm glad you brought this up. As for your first and second sentence, we have discussed this here in depth, but, when you are speaking of life simple to complex in an evolutionary sense, the information in cells for any kind of development must be there to carry out their development functions. Because matter from the "Big Bang" has no living information to produce life, you are left with, well zero. Now theories abound, I understand, that want to explain our world and all life from purely natural processes by taking God out of the equation. I get it, but the more science discovers and the deeper we go inside living systems, the more we see the staggering microscopic world that cannot be explained by meaningless, purposeless matter. The Genesis account is the only reasonable explanation for all living creatures and their incredible design and reproduction capabilities. Yes, I believe all life was created fully formed. Science cannot explain male and female developing from dead useless matter.

I agree, but where did those elements come from and how do they lead to integration of any kind of life without the programmed information to do so?

Well, we wouldnt know unless the creator decided to tell us, right? So the next question would be, did he tell us? The answer: Yes he did! This is how we know. How do we know God exists? What his nature is? That the book of Genesis is the Word of God? Again, we wouldn't know unless he decided to tell us. Did he? Yes!
“That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things. Rain down, you heavens, from above, And let the skies pour down righteousness; Let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation, And let righteousness spring up together. I, the Lord, have created it.”
Now, don't make the mistake of saying I'm proselytizing because you were the one asking the question, "How do you know that God exists?" So I'm telling you how I know. You are not born all knowing, so your accusing me by making statements like: "Or do you plan to continue proselytizing, and parroting rote-learned religious soundbites, to hide a profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills." You do the very same thing. Whats hilarious is that you make a statement of fact about me "profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills." You know nothing about me or my education or my critical thinking skills and yet are willing to make ludicrous statements attacking my character. Your false statements about me isn't really what it says about me, it's what it say about you! And your continued proselytizing of a nonsensical process of life emerging from non-life in which you are parroting rote-learned religious soundbites of your own to hide a profound lack of education in reality, or critical thinking skills has exposed you!

Oh? How so? Many evolutionary scientists have expressed disappointment and frustration as one of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution. Maybe you need to share your vast education and critical thinking abilities that you so proudly posses, to solve a problem no one of superior intellect to yours has yet been able to unravel! I'm sure they would be very appreciative! So please tell us how the Cambrian Fossils of sudden full-bodied creatures just all of a sudden appeared with no prior evident pathways to these creatures.

Okay, what are your debunking arguments for this explanation? Which keeps coming back again and again to my original question (still unanswered)
A Barrier to Evolution

Are you saying that logical fallacies are not fallacious arguments? In that case, water is really a gas, since it is only composed of two gases. I will assume that this comment was just a silly gaff. I do know for certain that any supernatural claim that violates the laws of physics, can quickly be dismissed. There has never been even ONE example in human history to justify such a claim. I can also name at least 15 countries since the Vietnam War, that might disagree that the intervention of the US military was just peacekeeping. List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia But your Ostrichism is clearly noted.

Now you are tripping over your own straw man, instead of just poor logic. What does the fine-tuning of the Universe(which it isn't), have to do with my molecular precursor analogy? Absolutely nothing. Since you are limited by the soundbites you have rote learned, you need to conflate the birth of the Universe with the birth of Life, and force-fit it into your presuppositional narrative. Let me ask you, without the formation of Earth, do you think that life could have formed on earth? Could you in the future not address what I don't say, but respond only to what I actually do say? So again, what is your explanation of how the first life began?

After reading the rest of your post, I now understand why religion can be so dangerous. Sometimes having a little knowledge can be dangerous. If I stated that Darwin was conflicted because he did not understand the mechanics of genetics, as a biological link between the environment and the variation in species, it would simply be rejected by your closed mind. If I stated over and over again that the 2nd law of thermodynamics, only applies to a closed system, it still will be stopped at the door to your closed mind. Stating that the entire earth is an OPEN system, would mean nothing to you. Even demonstrating how putting energy into a system can produce order from disorder, would be a waste of time. The Cambrian Explosion, although was 20-25 million years in duration, does not create any challenge to the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of Evolution. That is, the descent of all living species from a common ancestor. It would be a waste of time to explain that rapid evolutionary diversification of species, occurring over a 100 year period is not the same as over a 25 million year period. The former would truly debunk Evolution, and the latter only demonstrates a fluctuation in the rate of change. The fact that you need to try an exploit one of 5 accelerated speciation periods, is simply an act of sheer desperation. Even a 5 year old could debunk Evolution, by finding the fossil of a modern rabbit in the precambrian strata, or by demonstrating that a single gene can code for different proteins. It is ironic that Creationists try to exploit a 25 million year period, when they think the entire Universe happened over a 10 thousand year period.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I wouldnt expect any appeals to Heaven or Special Covenant. Two opposing world views, but "fallacious"? You dont know that for certain.

What poor logic? The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design. Which one of these three are more reasonable and logical to you? I like your analogy. The huge and mighty United States Military Forces are a great example as peace keepers, not war makers.

I’m really surprised you asked this question. Darwin admitted to having no way to defend his theory. The Cambrian Explosion is a great example of his doubts in his own words.
“There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”
“To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer… the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence beneath the Upper Cambrian formations of vast piles of strata rich in fossils is very great.”
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

No, I believe that the hypothesized speculation by science to explain origins of life other than supernatural creation is lacking in vast proportions. You have to remember, supernatural creation by a transcendent being has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with a supernatural transcendent being creating as he chooses, and, you are a result of his creation as is everything else in the universe. He communicates this to us by saying "For what may be known about God is plain to them,because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…
He also communicated to us through the scriptures that "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." Pretty simple really, he's telling us that all things in existence, physical and invisible exist through him and by him. As science discovers and continually discovers more and more, it is extremely reasonable and logical that it points to a transcendent designer.

Yes, all perspectives except Supernatural Creation, the one that makes the most sense.

We both have different worldviews. None of us were there to witness either Supernatural creation or Darwinian evolution. What we do have is physical evidence of our world, the laws that govern our world, and the vast amount of life from sea creatures to birds, to animals, to insects and human beings. Science cannot account for all of this except from speculation and hypotheses. The creator himself has communicated to us that what we witness all around us is here by his doing, and that is in the Genesis account. Now we can dialog back and forth, but, every person must decide for themselves which account best fits the data. It's my opinion by what we know, that the biblical account fits the data more reasonably.

I'm glad you brought this up. As for your first and second sentence, we have discussed this here in depth, but, when you are speaking of life simple to complex in an evolutionary sense, the information in cells for any kind of development must be there to carry out their development functions. Because matter from the "Big Bang" has no living information to produce life, you are left with, well zero. Now theories abound, I understand, that want to explain our world and all life from purely natural processes by taking God out of the equation. I get it, but the more science discovers and the deeper we go inside living systems, the more we see the staggering microscopic world that cannot be explained by meaningless, purposeless matter. The Genesis account is the only reasonable explanation for all living creatures and their incredible design and reproduction capabilities. Yes, I believe all life was created fully formed. Science cannot explain male and female developing from dead useless matter.

I agree, but where did those elements come from and how do they lead to integration of any kind of life without the programmed information to do so?

Well, we wouldnt know unless the creator decided to tell us, right? So the next question would be, did he tell us? The answer: Yes he did! This is how we know. How do we know God exists? What his nature is? That the book of Genesis is the Word of God? Again, we wouldn't know unless he decided to tell us. Did he? Yes!
“That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things. Rain down, you heavens, from above, And let the skies pour down righteousness; Let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation, And let righteousness spring up together. I, the Lord, have created it.”
Now, don't make the mistake of saying I'm proselytizing because you were the one asking the question, "How do you know that God exists?" So I'm telling you how I know. You are not born all knowing, so your accusing me by making statements like: "Or do you plan to continue proselytizing, and parroting rote-learned religious soundbites, to hide a profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills." You do the very same thing. Whats hilarious is that you make a statement of fact about me "profound lack of education, or critical thinking skills." You know nothing about me or my education or my critical thinking skills and yet are willing to make ludicrous statements attacking my character. Your false statements about me isn't really what it says about me, it's what it say about you! And your continued proselytizing of a nonsensical process of life emerging from non-life in which you are parroting rote-learned religious soundbites of your own to hide a profound lack of education in reality, or critical thinking skills has exposed you!

Oh? How so? Many evolutionary scientists have expressed disappointment and frustration as one of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution. Maybe you need to share your vast education and critical thinking abilities that you so proudly posses, to solve a problem no one of superior intellect to yours has yet been able to unravel! I'm sure they would be very appreciative! So please tell us how the Cambrian Fossils of sudden full-bodied creatures just all of a sudden appeared with no prior evident pathways to these creatures.

Okay, what are your debunking arguments for this explanation? Which keeps coming back again and again to my original question (still unanswered)
A Barrier to Evolution

In continuance,

The Problem is not in providing the information to you. The problem is the cognizant dissonance, and the presuppositional bias that prevents you from accepting the evidence. You simply do not want to know. You simply only want to believe. Evolution clearly does not violate the 2nd LTD, yet you keep parroting that it does, even though you are completely wrong. How does any logic account for this behavior? This is why Religions should never be taught to any developing young minds. I am positive there would be at least one taker, if a religious leader told his congregation, that if they jumped out of a two story window they would be held up by the hand of God. We have seen examples of this cultist behavior before.

It is best that you preach only to the choir and not to scientist, or rationalists. Scientific speculation is based on real facts and data, and is open to peer review and other checks and balances. You have absolutely Zero objective evidence to support any Godly claim at all. You have no idea whether God exists, speaks to you, or has demonstrated anything. You have no way to objectively distinguish between natural biological evolution, and divine biological creation(design). You simply believe that "God did it all", and that's all folks. You are NOT a God, and no matter how much you have convinced yourself, you are not endowed with special knowledge far beyond the limits of mortal man. If anything exist outside of the natural forces, where would it be(certainly not in the macro world)? Where would a heaven or hell be? Even dark matter is affected by gravity, and dark energy accelerates the expansion of the Universe. All the matter and energy in the Universe is accounted for, and does something.Including, obeying the universal laws of cause and effect. Anything added to a physical universe would cause a cascade of changes, leading to the eventual collapse of the entire Universe(since it is so fine-tuned). We are still here, existing in the past, present and the future. Therefore, nothing exist, or can exist outside of the four fundamental forces of nature in OUR Universe.

We not only have different world views(regarding religious beliefs), but our cognitive processing of information is also different. Your cognition of reality is based on conceptual bias, mine is based on perceptual bias. My bias is simply more reliable, than simple faith. You fail to understand that 99.999% of all life that has ever existed on this planet, were failures. That tiny percentage of survivors is what we see today. Life is the result of trial and error. We are the product of the survival genes passed onto us, only by the past survivors. Therefore, life wasn't created by magic.

So your answer to how do you know, is just "God told me so"? Or, because "the Bible tells me so"? Do you think that quote-mining verses from the Bible is evidence for the existence of God? How does God reveal this information to you, so that you know it can only be from your God, and not from over 4000 other Gods? Is God a He or a She? Do you believe that the Bible is errant, and the words from a God? How do you explain the problem of evil? Never mind, the questions are all rhetorical, since you would need to be a God to answer them.