You are a Godhater and it’s blatently obvious. You refuse to See the evidence of his existence simply because you don’t want to.
You said in one of your posts that you’ve never felt his presence, but did it occur to you that it might help if you would be humble enough to seek him rather than mocking His existence?

Anyway, The fact is that organization (i.e laws,order,etc) are evident in the universe and as John said chaos begats chaos Nature itself testifies of a conscious creator (God).

Someone once said “You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make him think”

You are just showing what the scriptures said “the carnal mind is emnity against God”

by the way the comment in the comment section was not meant to say you were a burglar or rapist, only saying that like any other rebellious person, the atheist wants to avoid accountability, which is true. Atheists I have met seem to think “If we deny God exists, we don’t have to answer to him”

but denying God’s existence does not make him cease to exist. Everyone will give account.

If you really believe that “this is all there is” as some seem to, then why are you sitting around debating the existence of God?

the talkorigins page states “Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor:

Add a part.
Make it necessary.”

However, if it isn’t necessary, why add a part in the first place if something was functioning well without it?

Further, the talkorigins page used the example of a bridge(that is designed by the way) I therefore think it is utter hypocrisy to claim that something doesn’t need a designer but then use something DESIGNED to try to make your case.

Dear Jamie, I suggest you use something a little more rational to make your case.

God was not caused, he is the uncaused (Initial) cause that caused everything else, btw I think this was brought up but natural selection cannot make anything. I can select which car I want to drive only after it has been made, the creation is separate from the selection.

Atheism is irrational,because as John said anything that is made has a maker.

Talk about “doublethink” on talkorigins part, and yours….you accused John of “Doublethink” but his view makes more sense than yours and the talkorigins page is evidently not a good,sound,reliable website to get info from since they are using irrational doublespeak (claiming something needs no designer and then using something designed to attempt to justify that irrational view)

That something made needs a maker, and a design mandates a designer is self evident

I love critics, they give me an excellent laugh because 1. They call others crazy 2. The critics prove it’s themselves that are crazy.

I remember John asked previously if your mind came to be by “chance” (mutations would still be chance events) how can you possibly know if anything you are thinking is right or rational?

“All our body systems work together, if there is one defective part the system will not function to its potential.”

That is self evident, take out your heart,lung, or kidneys and see if you still function properly I gaurantee you won’t.

“This is called the theory of irreducible complexity” It’s actually called observable self evident truth, it is not a theory.

As for the Muller two step, It is a faulty argument, not to mention insufficient, adding a part would only make sense if it’s already necessary hence irreducible complexity is obvious, p.s. you said “By the way the scientist who proposed the Muller two step was writing articles in 1918 ” to propose means to suggest, but as I stated the Muller two step is insufficient and faulty

Evolution CANNOT add new parts,despite talkorigins outright lie. Mutations only occur with EXISTING genetic information,gene DUPLICATION occurs yes but that is not creating new information, it’s just cloning existent information.

There are only certain genes in a gene pool, and no “evolutionary” process can make new totally different genes.

Mutations have been shown to be harmful by the way.

As for the bridge, it started out with three stones, and ended up with two stones and a stone slab (which is really just a replacement for the middle third stone) when it was done, so it hasn’t reduced its complexity at all.

I too find it ironic that in an attempt to argue against a designer T.O. used a bridge,which is designed. That reminds me of when Richard Dawkins was trying to argue against an intelligent designer he suggested that aliens (which would be intelligent but somehow Dawkins fails to see this)might be responsible for life on earth.

and a question Dawkins fails to sufficiently answer is “where did the aliens come from”

Towards the end of the documentary “Expelled”, the famous atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, in responding to a question from interviewer Ben Stein, stated that life could have been “seeded” on earth by aliens! What an astonishing admission! Dr. Dawkins doesn’t believe life is the result of any intelligence, but instead has arisen out of chance processes—yet when pushed for an answer, he appealed to some sort of intelligence to explain life on earth.

“This is called the theory of irreducible complexity and it basically says that some things are to complicated to have evolved through natural selection.”

The talkorigins article did not remotely disprove the necessity for an intelligent designer, it’s example (the bridge) actually showed the need for an intelligent designer, bridges are built by engineers after all.

As for Jamie’s belief that “natural selection is the designer” that’s attributing an ability to design something to a selection process. I think we have told you already to select is not creation, creation is an altogether separate event.

I can select from a variety of candy to see which ones I like, but only AFTER the candy is made by it’s manufacturer.

confused as to why JM put “conspiracy” as a tag here, was it sarcasm? Anyway, evolution has never been observed or proven,
It isn’t science, it’s a secular idealogy therefore using it as a defense and claiming natural selection can design something is a fallacy

You might try saying that when an illness builds up a resistance to a medicine that that can be considered “evolution” but really it can’t. Why? Because that’s like saying if a person builds up a tolerance for heroine that they must be “evolving” which nobody would rationally say.

Resistances are limited anyway, the immune system is built to withstand certain things, but illness still occurs sometimes. No matter how much tolerance a person or animal has for a drug it is still possible to overstep that tolerance (we see that all the time when junkies OD)

Surely I need not remind you Jamie that a bridge is not a living organism. Irreducible complexity is not “silly” in regards to living organisms. For a living organism to function properly it needs all of it’s parts in working order, if one part messes up, the organism will do one of two things.

1. get sick

or

2. Die

If you saw a watch, with all its FUNCTIONS and engineering DESIGN wouldn’t you surmise that it had a designer? You may never have met the maker of the watch, yet the very fact that you know everything made needs a maker tells you logically that the maker exists.

I have never met the maker of the tower eiffel in Paris, yet I know that it was made, because it is as they say Self evident, denying God’s existence just because you haven’t seen him is utterly as ridiculous as denying your great grandfather’s existence just because you never met him.

Your existence testifies to God’s existence, He created us to Love and fellowship with Him, I will pray for you and hope I have given you something to think on.