The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists (proof 1)

[max-greece]

"Hardly. I know what it is the cause - God the Creator."

And yet you are not even close to convincing us of that fact.

Why isn't your God helping you?

[Brian37]

That did not address the question. You claimed that god is justified in punishing everyone for the original sin because if any other person had been there, he would have sinned as well. This points to more than just an issue of free will or bad decision-making. If any human put in that position was guaranteed to fail... per your claim... then they were either designed to fail, or they were presented with a scenario that god knew they could not resist. So... is he a bumbler, or a malicious bastard?

God created free will beings.

The fall of man is the consequence of free will.

But remember God triumphs over all that.

Sure this works, because you have already assumed.

Assume first<=make shit up after assuming<= desired outcome

This is lazy logic.

Hard logic requires starting with data, testing the data, and having the data peer reviewed.

All you are doing is what all claimants of all pet gods do. Hardly impressive.

[Esquilax]

The theories of atheistic origin science are not accepted by all scientists.

Yeah, just 97% of them.

The mistake in the theories of atheistic origin science is to completely ignore the actions of God.

You would need to demonstrate that your god exists before you can claim that they are wrong to do so. See, science concerns itself with things that have some indication that they, you know, exist, and so far your god? Absolutely no indication of that.

For example, atheistic origin science sees common traits, genes, etc as proof of evolutionary ascent or descent (depending on how you look at it).

Because they are.

But all good designers use common elements in multiple designs. So common traits, etc is just the actions of a great Creator.

Another baseless assertion.

So what qualifications in science do you have?

Hardly. I know what it is the cause - God the Creator.

To use one of my favorite AronRa quotes: if you can't show it, you don't know it.

How do you intend to show your god exists?

[Doubting Thomas]

Even 1/3 the angles who have free will rebelled.

What about these angles?

[Crossless2.0]

Right, so what qualifications in these fields do you have, to disagree with their findings?

Because I'm sure you wouldn't be so blindingly arrogant as to comment on a subject that you aren't educated in, right?

The theories of atheistic origin science are not accepted by all scientists.

Behe, Dembski (who's not actually a scientist) . . . who else? Can you name one who is not considered a joke in the field?

The mistake in the theories of atheistic origin science is to completely ignore the actions of God.

For example, atheistic origin science sees common traits, genes, etc as proof of evolutionary ascent or descent (depending on how you look at it).

But all good designers use common elements in multiple designs. So common traits, etc is just the actions of a great Creator.

OK, so why are there multiple lines of evolutionary descent involving the development of the eye? Why, having apparently got it right in the case of the giant squid, did Yahweh introduce such bad eye design in the case of humans?

BTW, with regard to "origin science," which I suppose in this case means abiogenesis, you do understand -- don't you? -- the difference between hypothesis and theory in a scientific context? If so, please demonstrate. Also, please explain how God-did-it is any kind of explanation at all, rather than an admission of ignorance and a uselessly cumbersome restatement of a question.

How do you conclude that they are mistaken about the origin of DNA, Cells, life etc. when you stated elsewhere:

"And we do not know what is the cause of DNA, RNA, cells, or living organisms."

I think your argument is starting to fall apart at the seams in your own mind - let alone in our opinions.

Hardly. I know what it is the cause - God the Creator.

We meant mankind with only atheistic origin science's assumptions.

I'm not sure you should be allowed to use the word "know." You clearly have no idea what the criteria of knowledge would be.

[Chas]

Even 1/3 the angles who have free will rebelled.

What about these angles?

That is an acute question.

[Crossless2.0]

Even 1/3 the angles who have free will rebelled.

What about these angles?

Were the 1/3 rebellious angles "right" or "obtuse"?

[Jackalope]

Even 1/3 the angles who have free will rebelled.

What about these angles?

A third of them rebelled. Can't you read?

[Brian37]

The theories of atheistic origin science are not accepted by all scientists.

Yeah, just 97% of them.

The mistake in the theories of atheistic origin science is to completely ignore the actions of God.

You would need to demonstrate that your god exists before you can claim that they are wrong to do so. See, science concerns itself with things that have some indication that they, you know, exist, and so far your god? Absolutely no indication of that.

For example, atheistic origin science sees common traits, genes, etc as proof of evolutionary ascent or descent (depending on how you look at it).

Because they are.

But all good designers use common elements in multiple designs. So common traits, etc is just the actions of a great Creator.

Another baseless assertion.

So what qualifications in science do you have?

Hardly. I know what it is the cause - God the Creator.

To use one of my favorite AronRa quotes: if you can't show it, you don't know it.

How do you intend to show your god exists?

Wait for it.............."You cant see air but you know it is there"

[Jackalope]

Wait for it.............."You cant see air but you know it is there"

I can't see stupid either, but I kn...

Wait, yes I can.