Non-religious evidence for existence of God

[Esquilax]

bravo, you have shown to everybody now why atheists cant answer this difficult question.

No, only that you, apparently, can't understand the answers you're given.

you have not answered me my questions man?? you put link wich try to debunk inteligent deisgn, but i have not see any evidence from evoluitonist how this could evolve.

Uh, yes I did? It's all there, did you even read my post? The flagellum evolved from a different body part, the type 3 secretory system, most likely. It's all there, in black and white. Including in the evidence I cited.

How could non-thining nature create natural engine with 40 parts joined on correct places? how could nature put these parts like puzzles on correct places, logically inteklectual being iis that who think like that?

What is the evolutionary mechanism wich gives instructions to different parts of the natural engine so they connect on correct places so the engine could work properlly?

The short answer is that there isn't an intelligence guiding it, because organic development is nothing like a construction job. Do you think that your hand was put together piecemeal, first with just bare bones and nerves, and then musculature and skin layered over it separately? No, of course not; it all developed together during your gestational period. It's the same everywhere, dude; it's not a process of "this part goes here, and this part fits onto it there..." but rather an ongoing, fluid development based on the genetic blueprint of the organism in question.

How can I support this claim? Well, non-uniformity: occasionally you get examples of organisms where that development process failed, in the form of mutations. To use your own examples, not every sperm is created equal; some people do have non-motile sperm, for instance. If there was an intelligent designer at work, wouldn't you expect that all these little "machines" would come together the same every time? Why does your god spend so much time putting together these machines in defective ways, if that were the case?

answer me with your own words, dont put link mambo jumbo from evolutionst

So, answer you myself, even though we've already established I'm a writer and not a scientist, and despite the fact that I have citations from people much more well versed in the subject at hand? Answer myself, rather than give you the results from the people who've actually studied these things?

That's one hell of a disrespect for science you have, dude. Especially from one claiming some better answer.

i have seen documentary about that, taht is the biggest joke i ever seen.
they used mouse trap to disprove irreducibly complexity, they removed one part of the mouse trap and mouse trap had another function like, like decoration

Mmm, actually you're wrong. Dead wrong. It's all in the documentation I provided; there's specific mention of the bacterial flagellum in there, and the very functional, very interesting body part that could be made from the flagellum parts even if one removed more than half of the parts in question. All very good evidence for evolution, while at the same time being very bad for irreducible complexity.

my question to them are, who had rotating propellers before bacteria and spermcells?

You do understand that this has nothing to do with either evolution or irreducible complexity, and is in fact a contradictory question with regards to both concepts, right?