Amazing Scientific Evidences For God's Existence!

[neo-x]

Neo:
Andromeda crashes with the Milky Way = End of life
A fine-tuned, intelligence-based, designed, universe should never do that; and the reason why I have never been impressed with this line of argument.

Just my two cents.

Neo, God did not create ALL of the universe to have places conducive to life and beauty - some of it is quite destructive, even across the earth. And God also did not create human bodies to last for ever in this age and dimension. When God created us, gave us free will, He nonetheless had always known of the death and mayhem that would occur - and not just at the hands of man, but as to how He created things to function. This universe and us were created for THIS time and for God's purposes for it - no more, no less. So it is useless to project human understandings upon how much of it is violent and doesn't make sense, or isn't tranquil and in perfect harmony per it's designs. Does Christ/God becoming a man, so clueless, evil men could beat him horribly, torture Him to death? Of course that is not how WE would have created the scenario. We are mere slugs crawling through the mud, in comparison to the knowledge and purposes of God. Your human logic as to how things should be are pointless. The universe - at least as far as earth is concerned - was prepared for the day God would put life and humans here. He created but one being like us (on earth) - and He has purposes for us and our universe. Not one aspect of the creation is out of sync with God's purposes for it. If you believe in an uncontrolled universe, you're in no better shape than the pure materialist. But make no mistake, God is ultimately in control, else He would not be GOD!

Broadly speaking, I don't disagree on many things, Phil. However, what you wrote above is not the same as the original point for fine-tuning and intelligent design, which I have listed counter-purpose objections that seem quite obvious.

[Byblos]

The universe is

"stupendously fined-tuned parameters that collectively work together for life"

Andromeda crashes with the Milky Way = End of life

And yet it hasn't.

It is going to. Just a matter of time.

neo-x wrote:
A fine-tuned, intelligence-based, designed, universe should never do that;


Says who? And more importantly, why? That's a ridiculous assertion, knowing the world as we know it is not perfect (nor was it intended to be, particularly when viewed through a theistic prism).

Logic and reason!
Sorry, when you make an intelligent design, do you make another design that obliterates your first intelligent one?
Do you make a car with broken brakes and call it fine tuned or intelligent?
Set two cars on a collision course and call it intelligent or fine-tuned?

The argument is against fine-tuning and intelligent design, for life. Both of which are in question here.
My two objections, for starters, are:
1. In a fine-tuned universe specifically designed for life, why would you throw a life-ending wrench into it, when you just designed it for the exact opposite purpose?
2. The rate of inflation and expansion of the universe will either mean a crunch or a cold ever-expanding universe, in both cases, it's a death warrant for life on the universal scale. This flies in the face of fine-tuning and intelligent design for life.

It is rather impressive, if used properly as evidence, not proof.

Perhaps to the glory of God, not necessarily as evidence of the existence of Him.

I had considered line-by-line reply but it occurred to me I must ask a question first. Neo, what is the purpose of life (for a theist, that is)?

[abelcainsbrother]

Do you all now see why we must use the Gap Theory to destroy the theory of evolution?And only the Gap Theory can destroy the theory of evolution.

[abelcainsbrother]

As I have stated before, it has taken almost 380,000 years before the hydrogen and helium nuclei could capture an electron to form a stable atom. This DID NOT happen instantly after the BB. I was not talking about the strong nuclear forces that are responsible for the formation of atomic nuclei(including quarks and leptons). It is the formation a stable element that give atoms their specific properties, including their MASS. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make regarding your BB time line. I also can't see any direct or implied relationship between the evidence from the BB and an Intelligent Design. Matter(not particles) is composed of stable atoms(not simply atomic nuclei), which indeed took hundreds of thousands of years to form after the BB. If you tossed a coin in the air enough times, you will begin to see a pattern of equal amounts of heads and tails. Is this evidence that random chance is intelligent or designed? Of course not! But, if you wish to see design in snowflakes, natural disasters, supernova, black holes, or the human condition, it will always be from your own subjective perspective, not from any scientific perspective. Science operates(or should) from an objective perspective. Are you suggesting that "intelligence" is the answer to all questions relating to the creation of objective reality? I simply disagree. Can't we simply include, "I just don't know" as a plausible answer, especially to questions that only a God could answer?

You asked me, what "the capabilities are of blind, unguided, unintelligent things - what capabilities do you believe they have"? Although I disagree with the words that you use, the outcome is still the same, YOU! These random, blind, unguided, unintelligent events and circumstances, produced YOU! Not only YOU, but ALL life as you know it.

You have touched on too many topics, and have made too many unsupported assertions for me to respond to in one post. So can you stick to just one topic at a time? DNA is a molecule and not a man-made code like Morse, or Binary. Biological patterns and processes are far more adaptable and flexible than that. We use the term code only to describe the sequence of nucleotides(codon) that are necessary to produce one amino acid. Even though more than one sequence can code for the same amino acid(precursor to proteins). This ability to recognize patterns is an evolutionary trait necessary for our survival. No intelligence is required or necessary. Since you have ignored my subjective view of design, it would be pointless to reiterate this rationale again. Finally, you stated that cells don't evolve. If this were true then all the different types of human cells COULD NOT have come from the earliest stem cells. They must have started initially as muscle, heart, lung, nerve, or bone cells. This of course would be impossible! Almost all cells have the capacity to differentiate or become modified, given the right stimuli or modification. This also includes the immortal cancer cell.

I certainly don't believe in the existence of magic, the supernatural, ghost, spirits, or any superstitions as having any sound footing in science. But it is becoming apparent that you do. Don

All you're doing is proving 13th century philosopher Thomas Aquinas correct that things in our world are caused and all things that are caused by something else therefore there MUST be an uncaused first cause to get everything started so that things in our world have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else.An uncaused first cause would be the eternal Christian God that can create and cause universes easy if he chooses to.All you're doing is describing the physical universe and proving Thomas Aquinas correct and it has been correct since the 13th century and nothing science has discovered has proven it wrong.Also time is no problem for God because he is eternal so bringing up how long things took are irrelevant.God was at work long before he created this universe.

Also I don't know why you bring up multi verses because it is not peer reviewed science and there are competing scientific hypothesises that not all scientists agree on.As far as science claims the big bang is still king and it does not look like it is changing anytime soon.

[Philip]

Neo: Perhaps to the glory of God, not necessarily as evidence of the existence of Him.

Do you not see a logical contradiction with that? We can see massive evidences of God's glory, but not necessarily as evidence of His existence???!!! Apparently, you don't believe what the Apostle Paul asserts about the testimony of the Creation and the heavens? I mean, if not evidence, what do you call it? I'm getting that it's because you have expectations that the evidences play out in a way that YOU think are logical, measured against your personal scientific beliefs. But that's the excuse uttered by a million atheists we've seen claiming much the same.

[trulyenlightened]

Truly E: You asked me, what "the capabilities are of blind, unguided, unintelligent things - what capabilities do you believe they have"? Although I disagree with the words that you use ...

Why would you not like these words - unless you believe that there are vast limitations suggested by them? And there are - as each word's meanings asserts strict parameters and limitations!

TrulyE (doubles down): The outcome is still the same, YOU! These random, blind, unguided, unintelligent events and circumstances, produced YOU! Not only YOU, but ALL life as you know it.

TrulyE: I certainly don't believe in the existence of magic, the supernatural, ghost, spirits, or any superstitions as having any sound footing in science.

Ah, but you DO believe in magic - that blind, unguided, non-intelligent, random things can produce breathtaking complexity and designs on a scale we can scarcely fathom - not to mention the massive complexity of what showed up within the first three minutes of the Big Bang. So, yes, you DO apparently believe in MAGIC - as I don't have that kind of faith. Of course, it's not even science-based, because science cannot measure before the BB - science can only measure the physical. So what you assert is possible is only pure belief, but is unsubstantiated by many hundreds of years of scientific observations. And the more science knows, the more ridiculous is that anyone believes that blind, non-intelligent things can produce such complexity and order. Further, while I realize you believe it, please tell us HOW blind, unguided things can do these amazing magic tricks, and on so vast a scale?

Exactly what is limiting about being, "unguided", or "unintelligible"? Please explain the threshold and the units that determine when something is intelligent, and when something is just plain stupid? Relatively speaking, could something be both? Maybe you can also explain what perspective we should take, to determine which natural events are guided and which are not. Are you saying that all natural phenomenon can be explained as being either guided/unguided, intelligent/unintelligent? Since your words(other than ''blind") are subjective and objectively unfalsifiable, they are irrelevant, non-explanatory, and leaves you in an intellectually vulnerable position to barrack from. Unless of course you can clearly demonstrate evidence of the guiding intelligence behind all biological life and all biological processes. Just one example would do! Otherwise, we're back to the use of self-serving, self-adapting, exaggerated hyperbolic superlatives, to give the appearance of intellectual depth. Without evidence to support your assertions, it is just another clever exercise in convoluted logic and philosophical gymnastics. In other words, another argument from ignorance(belief) disguised as truth. With logic and philosophy, I can make s**t sound good enough to eat, but that doesn't mean I should put it on the menu. So please, what are the objective units to determine intelligence, complexity, or biological design? I'm sure you don't know, but at least these terms truly sound sciency.

What magic are you referring to in the first three minutes of the BB? I merely stated that matter, galaxies, stars, planets, etc., did not happen immediately after the BB. There was clearly NO ORDER CREATED, as you seem to be suggesting(that took 100's of thousands of years to millions of years). I have no problems with quarks, strong nuclear forces, and proton and neutron formations. What exactly was your point here? I'm amazed that you are able to use a computer, considering your obsession with "complexity". You seem to ignore the fact that at the root of all complexity is simplicity. All naturally occurring phenomenon have natural explanations. Let me also restate for you again, that I DON'T BELIEVE IN MAGIC(argument from incredulity)! I also don't try to falsely equate magic with random occurring natural events(equivocation fallacy). Maybe you can define, or give an objective example of a blind natural event, an intelligent natural event, or a guided natural event(non-man made)? All events in nature are BLINDLY, NATURALLY and UNINTELLIGENTLY guided by causality, and natural physical laws. For every action there is a reaction. For every cause there is an effect. Maybe you can demonstrate any natural cause without an effect, or any natural effect without a cause? I didn't think so! Yet, you want us to accept that any unknown or unclear effect(creation of the Universe, Life, etc.) can only have a supernatural cause. You expect this without providing any physical, observable, or fallacy-free evidence. No sir, it is YOU that must rely on faith and belief to bolster confidence, or to give some intellectual depth to more baseless assertions. In other words, you must believe in MAGIC! Don

[trulyenlightened]

As I have stated before, it has taken almost 380,000 years before the hydrogen and helium nuclei could capture an electron to form a stable atom. This DID NOT happen instantly after the BB. I was not talking about the strong nuclear forces that are responsible for the formation of atomic nuclei(including quarks and leptons). It is the formation a stable element that give atoms their specific properties, including their MASS. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make regarding your BB time line. I also can't see any direct or implied relationship between the evidence from the BB and an Intelligent Design. Matter(not particles) is composed of stable atoms(not simply atomic nuclei), which indeed took hundreds of thousands of years to form after the BB. If you tossed a coin in the air enough times, you will begin to see a pattern of equal amounts of heads and tails. Is this evidence that random chance is intelligent or designed? Of course not! But, if you wish to see design in snowflakes, natural disasters, supernova, black holes, or the human condition, it will always be from your own subjective perspective, not from any scientific perspective. Science operates(or should) from an objective perspective. Are you suggesting that "intelligence" is the answer to all questions relating to the creation of objective reality? I simply disagree. Can't we simply include, "I just don't know" as a plausible answer, especially to questions that only a God could answer?

You asked me, what "the capabilities are of blind, unguided, unintelligent things - what capabilities do you believe they have"? Although I disagree with the words that you use, the outcome is still the same, YOU! These random, blind, unguided, unintelligent events and circumstances, produced YOU! Not only YOU, but ALL life as you know it.

You have touched on too many topics, and have made too many unsupported assertions for me to respond to in one post. So can you stick to just one topic at a time? DNA is a molecule and not a man-made code like Morse, or Binary. Biological patterns and processes are far more adaptable and flexible than that. We use the term code only to describe the sequence of nucleotides(codon) that are necessary to produce one amino acid. Even though more than one sequence can code for the same amino acid(precursor to proteins). This ability to recognize patterns is an evolutionary trait necessary for our survival. No intelligence is required or necessary. Since you have ignored my subjective view of design, it would be pointless to reiterate this rationale again. Finally, you stated that cells don't evolve. If this were true then all the different types of human cells COULD NOT have come from the earliest stem cells. They must have started initially as muscle, heart, lung, nerve, or bone cells. This of course would be impossible! Almost all cells have the capacity to differentiate or become modified, given the right stimuli or modification. This also includes the immortal cancer cell.

I certainly don't believe in the existence of magic, the supernatural, ghost, spirits, or any superstitions as having any sound footing in science. But it is becoming apparent that you do. Don

All you're doing is proving 13th century philosopher Thomas Aquinas correct that things in our world are caused and all things that are caused by something else therefore there MUST be an uncaused first cause to get everything started so that things in our world have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else.An uncaused first cause would be the eternal Christian God that can create and cause universes easy if he chooses to.All you're doing is describing the physical universe and proving Thomas Aquinas correct and it has been correct since the 13th century and nothing science has discovered has proven it wrong.Also time is no problem for God because he is eternal so bringing up how long things took are irrelevant.God was at work long before he created this universe.

Also I don't know why you bring up multi verses because it is not peer reviewed science and there are competing scientific hypothesises that not all scientists agree on.As far as science claims the big bang is still king and it does not look like it is changing anytime soon.

It is totally irrelevant if I am reaffirming anyones views or not. I certainly don't agree with the concept of an uncaused first-cause. Sounds a bit oxymoronic. I have no idea where I gave you this idea. In fact, I thought my statements were beyond banausic rhetoric, to include stating only the obvious. There is NOTHING eternal that can exist in our four-dimensional Universe. Nothing(except the humble jellyfish)! There are no example of anything that is uncaused, or anything that is affected by anything uncaused. Is there such a thing as married bachelors or a square circles? No, they simply don't exist, in reality! But these concepts, indeed may exist as the mental constructs we create in our mind. They simply don't exist in our physical reality. I'm not going to pretend that I understand how you could possibly KNOW, not only what is in the mind of a God, but even what a God can or cannot do. If this is your belief, then it is your belief. But beliefs are not rooted in the scientific method. They are rooted in culture, and is culturally-specific. I have my own personal belief, that is also not rooted in the scientific method(universal subjectivity). But without proof/evidence, it will stay as my own personal belief.

Although the idea of multi-dimensions and the multiverse are only theoretical hypotheses, they are all mathematically valid. I'm afraid your defence of time, the multi-verse, and the BB are straw men based on statements that you seem to have taken out of context. Not sure why. Don

[RickD]

Do you all now see why we must use the Gap Theory to destroy the theory of evolution?And only the Gap Theory can destroy the theory of evolution.

[trulyenlightened]

Do you all now see why we must use the Gap Theory to destroy the theory of evolution?And only the Gap Theory can destroy the theory of evolution.

Why don't you simply FALSIFY the ToE. You can then book a flight to Oslo on the same day. Falsifying the Theory is very simple, and in over 140 years no one has. Or, is the destruction of the Theory only a Freudian Slip? Don

[PaulSacramento]

So, why does ice freeze a below zero instead of turning into a flower or catching fire?
Why does a seed from an oak produce an oak instead of a pine? instead of rock?
Why do two humans reproducing, produce a human and not a ape or a goat?
Why do hurricanes happen around the same time? everywhere? all the time?
And no, the answer is not "design".

[neo-x]

The universe is

"stupendously fined-tuned parameters that collectively work together for life"

Andromeda crashes with the Milky Way = End of life

And yet it hasn't.

It is going to. Just a matter of time.

neo-x wrote:
A fine-tuned, intelligence-based, designed, universe should never do that;


Says who? And more importantly, why? That's a ridiculous assertion, knowing the world as we know it is not perfect (nor was it intended to be, particularly when viewed through a theistic prism).

Logic and reason!
Sorry, when you make an intelligent design, do you make another design that obliterates your first intelligent one?
Do you make a car with broken brakes and call it fine tuned or intelligent?
Set two cars on a collision course and call it intelligent or fine-tuned?

The argument is against fine-tuning and intelligent design, for life. Both of which are in question here.
My two objections, for starters, are:
1. In a fine-tuned universe specifically designed for life, why would you throw a life-ending wrench into it, when you just designed it for the exact opposite purpose?
2. The rate of inflation and expansion of the universe will either mean a crunch or a cold ever-expanding universe, in both cases, it's a death warrant for life on the universal scale. This flies in the face of fine-tuning and intelligent design for life.

It is rather impressive, if used properly as evidence, not proof.

Perhaps to the glory of God, not necessarily as evidence of the existence of Him.

I had considered line-by-line reply but it occurred to me I must ask a question first. Neo, what is the purpose of life (for a theist, that is)?

To be with God is perhaps the ultimate purpose.

[neo-x]

Neo: Perhaps to the glory of God, not necessarily as evidence of the existence of Him.

Do you not see a logical contradiction with that? We can see massive evidences of God's glory, but not necessarily as evidence of His existence???!!! Apparently, you don't believe what the Apostle Paul asserts about the testimony of the Creation and the heavens? I mean, if not evidence, what do you call it? I'm getting that it's because you have expectations that the evidences play out in a way that YOU think are logical, measured against your personal scientific beliefs. But that's the excuse uttered by a million atheists we've seen claiming much the same.

1. The logical contradiction I see is a chaotic universe full of life ending potentials and then the argument that the universe is fine-tuned for life and intelligently designed. It isn't, as is apparent.

2. We can see creation and praise God for him being the creator. As a Christian we can say that, but is it necessary evidence for God? It is not, not objectively it isn't.

3. The evidence(s) point out the consequent nature of reality. To say then that it is evidence of God is the classic GOTG argument. Yes, as a theist you are preaching to the choir. Paul also asserted that a life of celibacy is better than marriage? you agree with that?
The point is, you are invoking God in creation by fine-tuning and intelligent design but you don't give any good reasons for the counter-arguments against these. It is not enough to be convincing. What you have listed are evidences but not necessarily of God, you can, of course, believe them to be and that is fine. However, there are glaring problems with that connection, some of which I shared.

To me you are mixing things which I think produce problems:
1. God controls creation with fine tuned-intelligent designed universe.
2. Things happen naturally (the reason why you are not a yec?) over time. e.g. 14 billion-year-old universe, epochs of life on earth rising up and dying etc, mass extinctions, yet whatever that was, the sole centre of everything is man. Doesn't make sense to me at all
3. God intervenes at special points to influence or fix or guide things. Again this is redundant if point 1 is true.

I maintain that in a fine tuned-intelligent designed universe, the Andromeda should never be on a collision course with us.

[Byblos]

I maintain that in a fine tuned-intelligent designed universe, the Andromeda should never be on a collision course with us.

Perhaps there should not be any type of galaxy formation at all then. While we're at it, why should we even look beyond our own backyard, we should question a designed universe for the mere existence of natural phenomena like volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, diseases, rats, snakes, microbes, bacteria, heck anything living at all. Of course, except humans that is. Why? Because those pesky humans just have to question everything, don't they?

I maintain that your line of thinking is simply ridiculous. The fact of the matter is we live in a contingent reality and contingent reality necessarily entails change and change entails all that we witness. While you and others see that as evidence of an unguided process, I (and others) see it as clear evidence of purpose.

[Philip]

Neo: To say then that it is evidence of God is the classic GOTG argument. Yes, as a theist you are preaching to the choir.

Neo - WITHOUT God, the gaps of what is possible would otherwise be impossible, and irrational to believe possible without an intelligence behind it. And that goes to whether God worked by instant creations (whether short or long), or via evolutionary means. That term, GOTGs gets thrown around as if we can perfectly know how things were assembled - and a universe from a given moment - that is an enormous, yes, gap, to explain.

Neo: Paul also asserted that a life of celibacy is better than marriage? you agree with that?

For SOME, absolutely. Paul clearly wasn't applying that to everyone - that's a poor analysis - see 1 Corinthians:7 - Paul is very pro-marriage and pro-sex: "... each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time.

Neo: The point is, you are invoking God in creation by fine-tuning and intelligent design but you don't give any good reasons for the counter-arguments against these.

That is because I don't believe there ARE good counter arguments to the astounding things that blind, random, unprogrammed/unguided things can produce. I find that immensely illogical - as did Einstein, as finally did, famous atheist Anthony Flew. We have ZERO evidence of unintelligent things creating themselves, or of exhibiting massive intelligence.

Neo: Things happen naturally (the reason why you are not a yec?) over time. e.g. 14 billion-year-old universe, epochs of life on earth rising up and dying etc, mass extinctions, yet whatever that was, the sole centre of everything is man. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

One - that's because you don't believe what Scripture says about the Creation. But that IS the reality: ONE creature (man!) has our capabilities of creativity, deep psychological awareness and thinking, high level of communications, the importance of deep love and complex relationships - all such things FAR surpassing what is in the animal kingdom. We were absolutely created to seek love and God, and so that relationships and communication is supremely important to us - there is NO animal remotely like us. Out of vast millions of lifeforms, we are the only one. That is exceptionally unique.

Neo: God intervenes at special points to influence or fix or guide things. Again this is redundant if point 1 is true.

To GOD, however, He has done what He has is all the same - you look at it from a procedural, technical view - one thing is merely a logical mechanical outcome, yet the other, some miracle. But yours is an artificial way of looking at God. How God has created and dealt with the universe is ALL "God stuff." You are merely upset because you think such things should break down via your unproven science views, as if it is illogical for God to do this or that. You and I have the brains of worms, in comparison to God. It is arrogant to think YOU know how God would or had to do this or that. It is YOU who is illogical, because you suppose to understand how a Creature of infinite capabilities and intellect should logically do things - but by WHOSE logic? Yours.

Neo: I maintain that in a fine tuned-intelligent designed universe, the Andromeda should never be on a collision course with us.

Neo, are we meant to live forever? Was man created to never die (post the Garden)? Why should we ever get sick, age, etc? Does Scripture not indicate there WILL be an end to THIS time? God has purposes for each stage of the universe and His creations - clearly, there were things gradually put in place for the day we would arrive, and things set up to even make that possible, and sustainable. But where did you get this idea that just because there would, eventually, be catastrophe for this world (if it played out naturally), that God meant for it to end that way? Does He not know the future? Did I build my own house thinking it would last for thousands of years, or more likely for the time I and some subsequent generations will be able to use it? Things are designed for what God purposes them. No, you can't prove that to unbelievers. But my argument is with things you have problems with as a believer.

I've also used the analogy - a man builds a house. There is chaos in the building process, materials randomly everywhere, strewn across a building site. There is a garbage pile for leftover materials - unorganized, messy, chemicals and paints intermixed with scrap wood, etc. Does the GARBAGE pile matter - or is not the intended focus planned for what comes out of it, the intended use and period of use? Later, house garbage goes to a chaotic dump somewhere - far away from homes and neighborhoods, so as to not pose a hazard. Such dumps sometimes catch fire, create chemical hazards, etc. - all as a result of homes being built and people living in them. The focus is not the chaos of the garbage dumps - it's the homes people live in. And the homes were never expected to last forever - only for whatever projected time length they would be useful and livable. Even WE realize that nothing we create is expected to last forever, nor how long exactly. But God sees the future. He knows whether or not it matters IF the universe were to continue, that our galaxy will experience catastrophe - because IT'S IRRELEVANT as to His purposes for our galaxy. Why? Because He also tells us that He has PLANNED an ending - one replaced by something far grander - perfectly ending as PLANNED by God. So, your argument falls apart, because YOU don't know the purposes for things, nor their orchestrated time lengths. Do YOU know the things God does? Doe you know His precise purposes and timings for what He has created? Course not! Which means your logical analysis of how God would do this or that is pointless.

Sorry, Neo, you're my brother, but I just see huge flaws in your thinking. But if you fail to accept what Scripture teaches, if you continue to think what YOU know negates it, none of it will make much sense to you. Again - a Messiah is necessary, God must become man and be tortured and crucified, be resurrected, and our eternal destinies rest upon believing these - HOW is that logical, from our perspective. Why wouldn't God have done things more logical, less painful, have explained things more clearly, etc., etc? It's only logical from God's way of thinking, correct? While we can logically follow the historical and prophetic markers that show Jesus and the NT must be true, and Jesus Who He claimed to be - it's still not logical that an all-powerful God would do things in such a way. And so neither should you assess things based purely upon man's best logic. What does Scripture say? "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." So, don't think that science or man has refuted Scripture - it's a very dangerous approach to truth.

[trulyenlightened]

So, why does ice freeze a below zero instead of turning into a flower or catching fire?
Why does a seed from an oak produce an oak instead of a pine? instead of rock?
Why do two humans reproducing, produce a human and not a ape or a goat?
Why do hurricanes happen around the same time? everywhere? all the time?
And no, the answer is not "design".

I'm not sure if these questions are directed at me. I also don't see their connection with my comments on the ToE. With all due respect, I think that any 2nd year high school science student could answer your questions. My only question is, WOULD IT MATTER? However, if your questions ARE directed at me, and you really want to know(not fishing), I will be more than happy to explain why humans can only produce other humans? Why seeds from oak trees can only produce other oak trees? Why ice freeze below zero, and cannot become fire or a plant? And Why do hurricanes occur around the same time of year(not everywhere or all the time)? Don