[TurboCretin]

(Original post by abc:))
LOl inbetweeners... 'I stopped believing in God when I realised it was just dog written backwards'. Of all the arguments I've heard for God not existing, this is my favourite and the one I will use from now on

Jesus is almost sausage

[Domeface]

Can a Theist please give me an example of something that can only be explained by the existance of God (or for which the scientific explanation is incorrect, with real-world evidence (ie, a holy book saying x is true does not make x true; other evidence must be supplied).

[gltw]

(Original post by Domeface)
Can a Theist please give me an example of something that can only be explained by the existance of God (or for which the scientific explanation is incorrect, with real-world evidence (ie, a holy book saying x is true does not make x true; other evidence must be supplied).

There is a type of bacteria called a Flagellum, this is a complex structure which requires all of its constituent parts working, if one is removed the entire structure would become useless. Therefore the bacterial flagellum is an example of an irreducibly complex structure that could not have evolved through naturalistic means.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Michael J. Behe)

In addition there is inadequate fossil evidence to suggest evolution is fact, if it was there would be millions of creatures with slight modifications embedded in the ground waiting to be discovered creating a full map of the tree of life. Also there has been no fossil evidence of a common ancestor.

To conclude, in order to support creationism you must use the word of God as that is the basis for creationism. I do not say with sternness that evolution is impossible, I say with the evidence available, in my opinion there must be a creator. With the continual advancement of modern technology it will help to confirm or reject creationism. But I have faith in a God that can save the soul, redeem all sinners and will fulfil the wish of all Gods people for us to glorify him and enjoy him forever.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

[Srxjer]

(Original post by gltw)
There is a type of bacteria called a Flagellum, this is a complex structure which requires all of its constituent parts working, if one is removed the entire structure would become useless. Therefore the bacterial flagellum is an example of an irreducibly complex structure that could not have evolved through naturalistic means.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Michael J. Behe)

In addition there is inadequate fossil evidence to suggest evolution is fact, if it was there would be millions of creatures with slight modifications embedded in the ground waiting to be discovered creating a full map of the tree of life. Also there has been no fossil evidence of a common ancestor.

To conclude, in order to support creationism you must use the word of God as that is the basis for creationism. I do not say with sternness that evolution is impossible, I say with the evidence available, in my opinion there must be a creator. With the continual advancement of modern technology it will help to confirm or reject creationism. But I have faith in a God that can save the soul, redeem all sinners and will fulfil the wish of all Gods people for us to glorify him and enjoy him forever.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

Drivel.

[corpuscallosum]

All this debate reminds me of an old episode of Never Mind The Buzzcocks...
Simon Amstell: While you're here, Stephen, is there a God?
Stephen Fry: No darling, no, get over it.

[JamHeadArt]

I'm of the belief that the only thing I can believe is that I can't believe anything 100%, except that only belief...

I mean, who has any undeniable proof of there being a God or there not being a God? When asking the question, surely the only possible answer can be "I don't know, maybe." Sure people will swing towards the evidence they've seen but I REALLY don't understand faith in something no-one can prove?

This is also another thing that annoys me about the science vs. God arguments. I'm a scientist at heart, continuously asking questions and wanting to find out how things work. The scientific method is to carry out experiments and see what happens, come to a THEORETICAL conclusion and use it to advance and find out more and double check that the conclusions were right (Incidentally, just because you throw an apple up in the air and see it fall back down 100 times does that mean it will 100% come down the next time? 100 times to a ratio of limitless = hmmmm).

Science can not rule out the existence of a God, nor can it prove one doesn't exist. It's all about beliefs from what you've seen and no-one has seen everything or knows everything, so how can you ever EVER EVER EVER be sure?

[Fusilero]

(Original post by gltw)
There is a type of bacteria called a Flagellum, this is a complex structure which requires all of its constituent parts working, if one is removed the entire structure would become useless. Therefore the bacterial flagellum is an example of an irreducibly complex structure that could not have evolved through naturalistic means.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Michael J. Behe)

In addition there is inadequate fossil evidence to suggest evolution is fact, if it was there would be millions of creatures with slight modifications embedded in the ground waiting to be discovered creating a full map of the tree of life. Also there has been no fossil evidence of a common ancestor.

To conclude, in order to support creationism you must use the word of God as that is the basis for creationism. I do not say with sternness that evolution is impossible, I say with the evidence available, in my opinion there must be a creator. With the continual advancement of modern technology it will help to confirm or reject creationism. But I have faith in a God that can save the soul, redeem all sinners and will fulfil the wish of all Gods people for us to glorify him and enjoy him forever.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

There is no such Bacteria as a flagellum, a flagellum is an organelle on certain bacteria. Also, it is not irreducibly complex - a similar structure called the TTSS is found on bacteria which has the same basal proteins yet still functions in a different role. That very fact means it is not irreducibly complex as to be irreducible complex is to mean that if you were to remove any part then it would become useless however the TTSS shows that the very same proteins that form the basal structure of the flagellum can in fact function as a different organelle. [1]

[gltw]

(Original post by Fusilero)
There is no such Bacteria as a flagellum, a flagellum is an organelle on certain bacteria. Also, it is not irreducibly complex - a similar structure called the TTSS is found on bacteria which has the same basal proteins yet still functions in a different role. That very fact means it is not irreducibly complex as to be irreducible complex is to mean that if you were to remove any part then it would become useless however the TTSS shows that the very same proteins that form the basal structure of the flagellum can in fact function as a different organelle. [1]

First and foremost, it trivializes the sheer complexity and sophistication of the flagellar system -- both its assembly apparatus, and its state-of-the-art design motif. Actually, the process by which the bacterial flagellum is self-assembled within the cell is so sophisticated that I have long struggled to convey it in an accessible way to lay-persons. Its core concepts are notoriously difficult to grasp for those not accustomed to thinking about the system or for those encountering it for the first time. But, at the same time, the mechanistic basis of flagellar assembly is so breath-takingly elegant and mesmerizing that the sheer engineering brilliance of the flagellar motor -- and, indeed, the magnitude of the challenge it brings to Darwinism,why exactly is flagellum biosynthesis so tightly regulated and orchestrated? Not only do the energy demands render the flagellum an extremely expensive system to run, but untimely expression of flagellum proteins may induce a strong immune response in the host system, something no bacterium wants to do.

What is the significance of this from the standpoint of evolutionary rationale? Well, flagellin monomers are somewhat potent cytokine inducers. If you are a Yersinia organism in possession of a Type-III Secretion System the last thing you want to do is display those flagellin peptides to the macrophages. Such would be liable to significantly countermand the Yersinia's anti-inflammatory strategy.

The bottom line is that modern Darwinian theory -- as classically understood -- has come no where close to explaining the origin of this remarkably complex and sophisticated motor engine. Just as Darwinian "explanations" of the eye may, at first, appear convincing to the uninitiated, largely unacquainted with the sheer engineering marvel of the biochemistry and molecular basis of vision, so too do the evolutionary "explanations" of the flagellum rapidly become void of any persuasiveness when one considers the molecular details of the system.

Do you really think that this system can be cobbled together by virtue of slight, successive modification, one small step at a time? Given that neo-Darwinism's key selling point lies in its purported efficacy in explaining away the overwhelming appearance of design, doesn't it stand to reason that its demonstrable impotence throws the design postulate back on the table as a viable and respectable scientific proposition?

Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute showed in one recent paper in the journal Bio-complexity that the model of gene duplication and recruitment only works if very few changes are required to acquire novel selectable utility or neo-functionalization. If a duplicated gene is neutral (in terms of its cost to the organism), then the maximum number of mutations that a novel innovation in a bacterial population can require is up to six. If the duplicated gene has a slightly negative fitness cost, the maximum number drops to two or fewer (not inclusive of the duplication itself).

It seems that the bacterial flagellum is as much a -- and perhaps a greater -- challenge to Darwinism as it was when Behe first wrote Darwin's Black Box in 1996.

Extracts are taken from: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute04 4801.html
I tried condensing information from this page

[Srxjer]

Copy & paste fail.

[girl oman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRWFx...eature=related

[Adam Kelly]

Yes he does. I will state my reasons late but first thank you God. So much. Thank you for the win and thank you for the GCSE results. I have great faith.

[Adam Kelly]

Yes God exists. No proof you say, but there is. Maybe you don't see it but I see it. Just some things in life, little things sometimes, sometimes big things. And when they happen I know that God exists. I know he is real.

Part of faith is knowing that something exists without seeing it. I know he exists.

I pray every day. I thank him every day. I know. I just know.

Thank you so much God. Really, really thank you. For everything. Thank you.

[JamHeadArt]

No God doesn't exist, possibly. Proof you say, but there isn't really proof of anything. Maybe you see it, but I don't. Just some things in life, little things sometimes, sometimes big things. And when they happen I know that God doesn't exist, or might, who knows?. I know he isn't real. Or maybe he is.

Part of reasonless blind faith is thinking that you know that something exists without seeing it. I know he might possibly exist and might not.

I pray to something somewhere sometimes. I thank myself everyday. I don't know. I just don't know.

Thank you so much Mum. Really, really thank you. For everything. Thank you.

EDIT: I could have went with something much more cynical, like I JUST KNOW HE DOESN'T. BEST ARGUMENT EVER.

[girl oman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyBiy6LZZQw

[girl oman]

(Original post by JamHeadArt)
No God doesn't exist, possibly. Proof you say, but there isn't really proof of anything. Maybe you see it, but I don't. Just some things in life, little things sometimes, sometimes big things. And when they happen I know that God doesn't exist, or might, who knows?. I know he isn't real. Or maybe he is.

Part of reasonless blind faith is thinking that you know that something exists without seeing it. I know he might possibly exist and might not.

I pray to something somewhere sometimes. I thank myself everyday. I don't know. I just don't know.

Thank you so much Mum. Really, really thank you. For everything. Thank you.

EDIT: I could have went with something much more cynical, like I JUST KNOW HE DOESN'T. BEST ARGUMENT EVER.

You will regret after death
Wait a day die
Will go to hell if does not believe in God

[123450]

(Original post by girl oman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyBiy6LZZQw

WTF is this crap?

Are you happy forever, back _again_ by any chance?

[123450]

(Original post by Adam Kelly)
Yes God exists. No proof you say, but there is. Maybe you don't see it but I see it. Just some things in life, little things sometimes, sometimes big things. And when they happen I know that God exists. I know he is real.

Part of faith is knowing that something exists without seeing it. I know he exists.

I pray every day. I thank him every day. I know. I just know.

Thank you so much God. Really, really thank you. For everything. Thank you.

A person with schizophrenia might 'know' that the CIA is listening into their every thought, just as much as you 'know' that god exists. I don't take those people seriously, so why should anyone take you seriously?

[DoomPuppet]

(Original post by girl oman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyBiy6LZZQw

... What?

[Aust1n]

If god exists what about the rest of the universe? Are all the other planets and moons owned by other gods, or is our god just too lazy to do anything with them?
Why aren't dinosuars in the bible?

Why doesn't he step in every now and again to help people?

[JamHeadArt]

(Original post by girl oman)
You will regret after death
Wait a day die
Will go to hell if does not believe in God

That sounds like a threat full of love. Your God must be happy about your behaviour. Good for you and Him, you pair of crazy weirdos.