The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[Passerbye]

You are right about the sub-atomic particles. We don't know enough to know what to think of them.

 

[Passerbye]

Why? You pick up a rock, then drop it: 'Look at the rock. All it seems to do is fall. It seems to me like something must be watching them to make them act that way.'

That can be explained but something coming from nothing and then going back into nothing, very very fast, is different. It bypasses laws of conservation of energy and such.

 

[kidnic]

What about this evidence for ID?

For someone to create DNA in a laboratory, it requires intelligence and design. Namely, the intelligence and design of the scientist working in the lab. We therefore conclude that given some intelligence and design, we can have some DNA.

On the other hand, where have we witnessed the creation of DNA without any intelligence or design involved?

 

[Passerbye]

On the other hand, where have we witnessed the creation of DNA without any intelligence or design involved?

That is a very good question.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What about this evidence for ID?

Well, for starters, it isn't evidence for ID - it is a pathetic attempt to take the results of mankinds ability to reason, and mistakenly assign the results to a being that we have no evidence to believe even exists. Other than that, it's fine.

For what it's worth, I don't think even mankind has "created" DNA in a laboratory. We have identified it's structure, and we are in the process of mapping the human genome - but I don't believe we have actually created DNA. Perhaps Painted Wolf or Ceridwen could give us some insight on this. I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing anything about mankind creating DNA.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

There is another point, which I just brought up without even knowing it at the time. How do scientists explain the way sub-atomic particles behave? It seems to be very difficult for them, without agreeing a creator is involved in the decisions made.

Reproduction used to be difficult to explain too. Patience, Passerby--it is only a matter of time. We've come a long way from spontaneous generation.

Well, If I created rules to a world, and wasn't trying to get "everyone" to believe in the miraculous things I do, I would do the same.

Does he want people to believe in him or doesn't he? I don't get this "god" character.

On the other hand, where have we witnessed the creation of DNA without any intelligence or design involved?

Its all about the birds and the bees, kids.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... For someone to create DNA in a laboratory, it requires intelligence and design. Namely, the intelligence and design of the scientist working in the lab. We therefore conclude that given some intelligence and design, we can have some DNA.
On the other hand, where have we witnessed the creation of DNA without any intelligence or design involved?

Kidnic -

Well, I have just had it confirmed that we have NOT created DNA in a laboratory, even with the use of intelligence and design. Using the rock solid logic that permeates the Creationist and ID "evidence", I would think that you and Passerbye, will now claim this to be conclusive evidence that ID is pure bunk...

I'm anxiously awaiting your claims that evolution has now been "proven".

TVOR

 

[Passerbye]

idnic -

Well, I have just had it confirmed that we have NOT created DNA in a laboratory, even with the use of intelligence and design. Using the rock solid logic that permeates the Creationist and ID "evidence", I would think that you and Passerbye, will now claim this to be conclusive evidence that ID is pure bunk...

I'm anxiously awaiting your claims that evolution has now been "proven".

TVOR

What? Who said I thought DNA has been created in a laboratory?

Reproduction used to be difficult to explain too. Patience, Passerby--it is only a matter of time. We've come a long way from spontaneous generation

Yes, reproduction was difficult to explain... now it's not.

Does he want people to believe in him or doesn't he? I don't get this "god" character.

He does, but there are other factors, as I see it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Kidnic -

Well, I have just had it confirmed that we have NOT created DNA in a laboratory, even with the use of intelligence and design. Using the rock solid logic that permeates the Creationist and ID "evidence", I would think that you and Passerbye, will now claim this to be conclusive evidence that ID is pure bunk...

I'm anxiously awaiting your claims that evolution has now been "proven".

TVOR

What? Who said I thought DNA has been created in a laboratory?

My apologies, Passerbye. I didn't mean to imply that you had made the claim that DNA had been created in a laboratory - that was clearly from Kidnic's post.
My reference to you was in applying the logic that since we have found a chink in the arguement for ID, that we can now dismiss the entire idea.

TVOR

 

[kidnic]

Kidnic -

Well, I have just had it confirmed that we have NOT created DNA in a laboratory, even with the use of intelligence and design. Using the rock solid logic that permeates the Creationist and ID "evidence", I would think that you and Passerbye, will now claim this to be conclusive evidence that ID is pure bunk...

I'm anxiously awaiting your claims that evolution has now been "proven".

TVOR

Aha, so... still using the same argument, we can conclude that since we haven't been able to "create" DNA ourselves, then it requires more intelligence and design than we currently posses. If this is the case, it does nothing to my argument.

 

[Tawn]

On the other hand, where have we witnessed the creation of DNA without any intelligence or design involved?

I think Voice of Reason adequately resolved the DNA in lab issue.. but anyway simple answer to this question.
If we observe a single bacteria or amoeba or whatever simplistic stupid organism incapable of design.
It splits into two.
So now DNA has been created! Without intellect or design!!

Now I think its fair you answer the opposite question. "where have we witnessed the creation of DNA with intelligence or design involved?"

 

[kidnic]

I think Voice of Reason adequately resolved the DNA in lab issue.. but anyway simple answer to this question.
If we observe a single bacteria or amoeba or whatever simplistic stupid organism incapable of design.
It splits into two.
So now DNA has been created! Without intellect or design!!

Now I think its fair you answer the opposite question. "where have we witnessed the creation of DNA with intelligence or design involved?"

I think I must repost my most recent post, as you must not have seen it:

Aha, so... still using the same argument, we can conclude that since we haven't been able to "create" DNA ourselves, then it requires more intelligence and design than we currently posses. If this is the case, it does nothing to my argument.

Okay, so now, why don't you think that an bacteria reproducing is making DNA without intelligence or design?

If I made a robot capable of rebuilding itself, then the robots that it created would still be constructed using intelligence and design.

 

[Steve]

post - 43

Firstly, there are no flaws in Evolution that I am aware of. Secondly, Flaws can indicate a lack of knowledge or a smaller mistake rather than proving the explanation false. Why do Creationists INSIST on referring to evolution as flawed? Whenever they put forward these so-called flaws, as always, it turns out they simply dont understand evolution.

Thats interesting, i think i have a better understanding of evolution then many, i have studied both sides of the argument. I will start a thread just on the flaws of evolution theory.

-----------------------
post - 48

Yes, automobiles are made by robots but the robots need intelligent instructions from an intelligently programmed computer to build them. Intelligence is still required

The point is that intelligence does not have to be a property of the producer. Now, if want God as the "intelligent designer" you have to show he is the producer as well. But ID doesn't have any evidence.

No the point is the car wouldnt be produced without inteligence. The car shows signs of an intelligent designer, we know it dosnt make itself so we can conclude it was made. Infact ive never been into a car factory yet i belive when people say that its the result of design because i look at it and thats the answer that makes the most sense.
I could be ignorant if i choose to be and say well ive never seen a car actually being made so i cant be sure, i could even go a step further and come up with diferent theories about the cars production that have nothing to do with reality (afterall given enough time anything we want is possible apparently)and i can do this all because i havnt acutually seen it first hand as its being produced, but still id be ignorant to do so.

-----------------------
post - 49

Unintelligent Design over Billions of years which I have already stated could not happen.

I agree and so does science

Without the cellular environment, spontaneous chemical reactions would destroy proteins quicker than they could form. One of the assumptions under-pinning the origin of life scenarios is the absence of oxygen on the early earth, but such an absence of oxygen would also mean an absence of ozone and so UV radiation would destroy complex chemicals such as proteins or nucleic acids (DNA/RNA). Cells have all sorts of mechanisms for protecting the cellular machinery (enzymes, membranes, DNA, RNA, etc.) from oxidative processes. Without these mechanisms, it is impossible to conceive how ‘life’ could form itself.

By the way, it is impossible that the earth could have been devoid of oxygen for very long (assuming that it could have been at all!) because UV penetrating to the earth in the absence of an ozone layer would split water molecules to produce oxygen. There is no evidence that the earth was ever free of oxygen, and so even the abiotic origin of the amino acids, nucleotides and sugars is impossible. Even with no oxygen, ribose and uracil, critical components of RNA, are extremely difficult to produce and are very unstable in a cell-free environment, so are unlikely to have formed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp talks alot about this.

-----------------------
post - 51

Do you refuse to consider that there could have been much simpler forms of life which no longer exist? You cant look at life today, even simple life - even the most basic building blocks of todays life, and say.. how could that 'appear' naturally?

"You cant look at life today, even simple life - even the most basic building blocks of todays life, and say.. how could that 'appear' naturally?"
I agree! Your right, the observable evidence says no. So instead you have to make up ideas(there must have been simpler life forms etc) and then you claim that your theory is based stricly on science??? You cant say you dont have faith, you do - just in the wrong thing


-----------------------
post - 56

I was refering to a cell.
I was saying that there are things that are required for life, chemicals, that tend not to form naturaly. In fact they hate forming with eachother. They would rather form other chemicals. They don't like to form with eachother. Most of the chemicals required for life must be forced to bond with eachother.

I agree

Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.

Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

by Dr Jonathan Sarfati at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp

 

[Steve]

post - 59

There are two choices:

A: Unintelligent Design over Billions of years which I have already stated could not happen.

B: Intelligent Design in 6 days by a God that showed us that he did it, how he did it, when he did it, why he did it, and where he did it. You have the Who, what, where, when, and how that is required. What more do you need?

It is either A or B. There is no in-between. There is no C. A is impossible so it must be B.

Stay with me on this one, Passerbye. This is a simple concept, yet every proponent of ID seems totally incapable of understanding it. Even your hero, Steve has shown an amazing inability to follow this:

Saying that ID must be correct if you can disprove evolution is a fallacy. It is known as an Argument from Ignorance. You (and Steve) are artificially limiting the possibilities to evolution and intelligent design. Understand that you are doing so, because you think it helps you "prove" ID, when nothing could be further from the truth.
You view it as equivalent to flipping a coin - it MUST come up either heads or tails. Your argument is that if it isn't heads - VOILA! it must be tails!! You are wrong. If you staked your life on it, you would not be guaranteed a life when it is all said and done. Is it possible that when we flip the coin it might end up standing on edge? Is it possible that we flip the coin, and it goes down a hole in the floor? Of course both of these possible outcomes exist. Here's one - we flip the coin, and, before it can land, an omnipotent being transforms it into a golf ball - with only one side!! You now have 5 possibilities (two probable, two improbable, one - well, no chance in hell). The only reason that I have limited it to 5 possibilities is that is the limit of my imagination. To argue that the outcome of the coin toss MUST be one of these five possibilities, is still to commit the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance. It is possible that there are other outcomes that I am unaware of. This exact same principle applies to your incessant derision of evolution - a scientific theory that you neither understand nor are willing to examine (without a closed mind).

Stay with me on this - even if you PROVED, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that evolution were wrong (which you can't and won't), you would still not have proved that ID is correct. For goodness sake, please try to comprehend that simple fact.

We should reach conclusions from what we know right? Now if what we know points to there being somthing unknown then that is evidence for it, we have made a "discovery", a large point to science.
Now if we know and can demonstrate that life for example cannot rise from non-life then we can logically conclude that it was created. If however we state that before we make any conclusions about anything we must first know everything, then nothing will ever be discovered. There will be nothing to discover because we either know everything and therefore cant discover anything or we dont know everything and therefor are forbidden from making any conclusions because according to your logic our conclusion would be based on ignorance.

The very "logic" you are trying to show undermines the whole bases of scientific research, if a scientists or anyone elses conclusions for that matter are forbidden from being excepted just because anyone can then say, "there may be some other explanation that we dont know about", then whats the point trying to make conclusions in the first place? How can you ever reach any conclusions about anything?

About your coin analogy, from what i could tell you used it to try and represent the 2 options presented by Passerbye. The problem was you then went on to demonstrate that the coin analogy dosnt represent 2 options at all thereby showing the fallicy of using it that way "It is either A or B. There is no in-between."

As Passerbye stated later "Either intelligence made life or non-intelligence." You can play with analogies all you like but 2 options remain, and like i pointed out befor we make conclusions based on what we know, not what we dont, If evolution\abiogenesis can be shown to be flawed etc yet we see obvious design all around us(human brain for eg), then i will conclude there is a creator.


"even if you PROVED, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that evolution were wrong (which you can't and won't), you would still not have proved that ID is correct."
"can't and won't" is that you being open minded is it.
Honestly if you belived that evolution was wrong and that the earth was not millions of years old what would you conclude?


-----------------------
post - 62

There may be many different ways life could have occurred through non-intelligent creation - so proving one explanation wrong doesnt prove your intelligent-creation correct.

i.e. If you could prove Evolution false, It doesnt prove ID true. There may be something else none of us have considered.

What was that about arguments from ignorance?


-----------------------
post - 67

To The Voice of Reason: I only know of two ways it can happen. Either intelligence made life or non-intelligence.

Exactly. This is the very reason that your argument fails - you are arguing from a position of ignorance (logically speaking). Understand that I am not saying that you are ignorant regarding what you are saying - that would be another point altogether. The rules of logic apply to all debates equally. The bottom line of the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance is that discrediting position A is NOT the same as providing evidence for position B. Every one of these threads discussing ID is based on someone's misunderstanding of this basic rule of logic. If you (or anyone else) wishes to argue for ID, then please, by all means, do so. Show us some evidence FOR ID - IN SUPPORT OF ID. Neither you, nor any other proponent of ID has ever shown us one shred of evidence in support of ID - because there is none.

Do you just not want to belive that we have presented evidence? I proposed the vast complexities of life itself as evidence, we see design all around us, design implies designer and this is strengthend even more when the only opposing theory can be shown to be false. But thats when you start arguing from ignorance("you dont know that, maybe it was somthing we dont know about"), yet you wrote befor about not being close minded. Has it ever crossed you mind that there may be a God? Would you want to know befor your death?


-----------------------
post - 68

What I am saying is that life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong thus the whole category is taken out. If you take out a category does that not take everything in the subcategories out? I didn't think I was just proving evolution wrong, I thought I was proving Non-ID wrong and thus the only option is ID. What ID’er did it can be discussed; the fact is there still needs to be one.

This is exactly what I am referring to - you insist on committing the same mistake, even after it has been shown to be incorrect. If you repeat your argument from ignorance five more times, you will still be wrong five more times. Simply rephrasing it, or cloaking it in new terms will not help - it will still be a logical fallacy on which you hang your hat.

On top of that, your claim that "life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong" is absolutely ludicrous. First, it is impossible to prove a universal negative - and your claim is actually a universal negative. Even if "life from non-intelligence" had been disproven at this time, it would not negate the possibility that it might be shown to be possible in the future, as more knowledge is gained. The truth of the matter is that "life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong" is an outright lie. Whether you have been deceived and are merely parroting this garbage, or you know better and are intentionally trying to deceive, I do not know. Either way, your statement is erroneous.

Making a conclusion from what is known is not a logical error, if you can show that the only known theory of how all these apparently designed lifeforms arose without a designer is invalid then it supports that there is infact a designer??? Unless you then argue from ignorance.


-----------------------
post - 73

You wish to claim that "life cannot come from non-life". Okay. Please provide some evidence to support your claim. Painted Wolf has repeatedly demonstrated that it has been done in a laboratory setting - and has provided links to sites that demonstrate the experiment, and peer reviewed work supporting it.

Do you even know the results of those experiments urey/miller for eg? Seriously your faith in what you state is quite remarkable. Life from non-life is one of the weakest areas in the no ID'er idea and yet you state it like its fact.

I know you dont like the source but just for the sake of interest have a look at a few of these points.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp


-----------------------
post - 99

Why is it that God is a fallback position for you?
Scientists cant explain this... so it must be God..

'Science' is the search for answers.

And what if God is the Answer? All this newly scientifically discovered complexities that we see such as the complexity of even the simple cells, DNA/RNA etc is science pointing to God i belive, often the more we learn the more questions that are raised and the more naturalistic answers fail. Yet some people say we must only remain naturalistic in our thinking no matter what the evidence says and then the answers that science is pointing to get side stepped.

 

[Steve]

post - 110

Kidnic -

Well, I have just had it confirmed that we have NOT created DNA in a laboratory, even with the use of intelligence and design. Using the rock solid logic that permeates the Creationist and ID "evidence", I would think that you and Passerbye, will now claim this to be conclusive evidence that ID is pure bunk...

I'm anxiously awaiting your claims that evolution has now been "proven".

Aha, so... still using the same argument, we can conclude that since we haven't been able to "create" DNA ourselves, then it requires more intelligence and design than we currently posses. If this is the case, it does nothing to my argument.

Agreed, if DNA is so complex etc that we cant make it in a lab, how does that not support needing an even higher intelligence and power? Not only that but it also shows the absurdity of beliving the the right conditions came about by purly random chance when we cant even make these conditions with all our intelligence.

-----------------------
post -111

If we observe a single bacteria or amoeba or whatever simplistic stupid organism incapable of design.
It splits into two.
So now DNA has been created! Without intellect or design!!

What? so your saying start with bacteria(needs DNA) watch it split into 2, and DNA has been created? Right.
So where did this DNA in the first bacteria come from?

That is like saying get a book, photocopy it, and now a new book has been created. Look no need for an author!

 

[Tawn]

Aha, so... still using the same argument, we can conclude that since we haven't been able to "create" DNA ourselves, then it requires more intelligence and design than we currently posses. If this is the case, it does nothing to my argument.

Okay, so now, why don't you think that an bacteria reproducing is making DNA without intelligence or design?

If I made a robot capable of rebuilding itself, then the robots that it created would still be constructed using intelligence and design.

If you think something Godly is happening behind the bacterial process then fine.. were not going to get anywhere with that. I dont.. it is just simple copying. It is DNA being created without intellect and design. If you think a robot is capable of intellect and design then theres no point arguing.. robots dont think - they just follow a routine.
So lets skip all that and go where youre really headed.. who created the routine? I say the routine is based on basic laws of reality. Survival, process of selection. You say its intelligently designed.. Survival and selection is demonstratable. Adaptation is a fact. Its also logically obvious. If something survives it breeds, it it doesnt its genes are culled. However, where is the evidence for ID???

Yes perhaps humans will learn to create DNA through design.. but that doesnt mean thats the only way it could have occured.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*Angellous sighs*

Happy reading

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Aha, so... still using the same argument, we can conclude that since we haven't been able to "create" DNA ourselves, then it requires more intelligence and design than we currently posses. If this is the case, it does nothing to my argument.

Outstanding!! Let me get this straight - if mankind has been able to create DNA in a laboratory setting, it is evidence in support of intelligent design (we'll just skip the part where it was manmade, and not an act of God). Conversely, if mankind is unable to create DNA in a laboratory setting, then THAT is evidence for intelligent design. If you aren't a lawyer, you have missed your calling. I can't remember the last time I saw someone argue both sides of the fence as well as this.

The very "logic" you are trying to show undermines the whole bases of scientific research, if a scientists or anyone elses conclusions for that matter are forbidden from being excepted just because anyone can then say, "there may be some other explanation that we dont know about", then whats the point trying to make conclusions in the first place?

Even in ignorance, you occasionally brush up against the truth. This is exactly how science works. Science ALWAYS holds open the possibility that there may be a better explanation for natural phenomenon. This is exactly why science is self correcting - because scientists are constantly searching for better ways to explain the laws of the universe. You don't need to put the quotation marks around the word "logic". I understand what the word means, and I can apply it to debated positions (correctly). Now, if you could do the same, we would be able to move on with this debate. Unfortunately, EVERY single time you try to apply logic to a position (yours or your opponents), you have mangled it beyond belief. You have totally misunderstood the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance, and you missapply the term as if it were a virtue to do so.

How can you ever reach any conclusions about anything?

I guess I could just "jump" to them as you do.

About your coin analogy, from what i could tell you used it to try and represent the 2 options presented by Passerbye. The problem was you then went on to demonstrate that the coin analogy dosnt represent 2 options at all thereby showing the fallicy of using it that way "It is either A or B. There is no in-between."

And of course, you immediately demonstrated your inability to grasp the analogy.

As Passerbye stated later "Either intelligence made life or non-intelligence." You can play with analogies all you like but 2 options remain, and like i pointed out befor we make conclusions based on what we know, not what we dont...

And yet, your entire argument for ID is based on your inability to comprehend evolution (what you don't know). Now how ironic is that?

If evolution\abiogenesis can be shown to be flawed etc yet we see obvious design all around us(human brain for eg), then i will conclude there is a creator.

Of course you will - that is called "jumping to a conclusion" and drawing conclusions based on something that you do not know. Beautiful.

Honestly if you belived that evolution was wrong and that the earth was not millions of years old what would you conclude?

I would withhold my conclusion until I had some evidence for another theory - while you would automatically attribute it to God, with no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Do you just not want to belive that we have presented evidence?

You haven't provided any. All you have done is to try to discredit evolution. The fact that you are unable to grasp that THIS is an Argument from Ignorance does not validate your position - it merely demonstrates your ignorance of the discipline of logic, and how it is applied.

I proposed the vast complexities of life itself as evidence, we see design all around us, design implies designer and this is strengthend even more when the only opposing theory can be shown to be false.

This is Begging the Question (or, as it is often called, a circular argument). You are claiming that life came about as a result of Intelligent Design, and your evidence is that life looks as if it were intelligently designed. Whatever you do, please spare me the ensuing lesson in bastardized logic - you'll only get it wrong again.

But thats when you start arguing from ignorance("you dont know that, maybe it was somthing we dont know about"), yet you wrote befor about not being close minded.

I cannot believe I am still trying to explain this to you. You cannot possibly be this thick.

Has it ever crossed you mind that there may be a God?

Yes, the thought has crossed my mind. Has the thought that God might not exist ever crossed your mind?

Would you want to know befor your death?

Of course, wouldn't we all like to know the answer to that one? I'm certain that if God exists, He will let me know prior to my death. If He chooses not to reveal Himself to me, then either He wanted to keep it a secret, or He never existed (for me). Either way, I will not draw a conclusion until I have some evidence to influence my decision.

Making a conclusion from what is known is not a logical error, if you can show that the only known theory of how all these apparently designed lifeforms arose without a designer is invalid then it supports that there is infact a designer???

Are you trying for the comic effect?

Unless you then argue from ignorance.

I wish I had never even introduced the phrase to you. You do not understand it, you missapply it, you bastardize it, and you do so in the full faith that you are right. Unbelievable.

Do you even know the results of those experiments urey/miller for eg?

Yes, I do.

Seriously your faith in what you state is quite remarkable.

Thanks. It is a result of reading and understanding what I read. When enough evidence is presented, I accept the conclusion.

Life from non-life is one of the weakest areas in the no ID'er idea and yet you state it like its fact.

Kind of like a Creationist stating that Intelligent Design is a fact, based on the fact that they don't like and can't understand evolution?

TVOR

 

[Passerbye]

Ahhh, thank you Steve.

It is DNA being created without intellect and design. If you think a robot is capable of intellect and design then theres no point arguing.. robots dont think - they just follow a routine.
So lets skip all that and go where youre really headed.. who created the routine? I say the routine is based on basic laws of reality. Survival, process of selection. You say its intelligently designed.. Survival and selection is demonstratable. Adaptation is a fact. Its also logically obvious. If something survives it breeds, it it doesnt its genes are culled. However, where is the evidence for ID???

The intellect for creating the DNA is in the DNA, and without the DNA no DNA could be made. We can't even make DNA. How can random natural occurrences create something that with all our knowledge we can't even create? Oh, and being a Computer Technician I think I would know if the robot required intelligence to make a copy of itself. It does. If it doesn't get the proper commands, it won't do anything. Who makes the commands you ask? Programmers! So, if you won't accept God as your creator this information shows that you should at least accept him as your programmer. I mean come on, Bill Gates made MS-DOS and he is recognized by every one that hears someone say that he made the basis for Windows. This is doubted by very few, if any. Why doubt you have a programmer? What is your reason for so much doubt?

 

[Passerbye]

To "The Voice of Reason",
I will reply to you in a little bit. Oh, won't that be so much fun?