What an odd way to provide evidence of a god.
I have plenty of evidence for Gods existence. Here it is :
but that really does not matter for now.
Just accuse the opposition of not knowing ALL there is to know about the universe
I don’t acuse the opposition of that. But i am showing that your world view is not consistent. I have given plenty of oportunity to provide evidence for philosophical naturalism, which could back up the claim that strong atheism is the best explanation for our existence, rather than theism.
The only direct explanation was , that chimps have 98% similarity of dna with humans. That is NOT evidence for strong atheism. It could be evidence for a common ancestor. These numbers are false :
Results from this extensive and very objective study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee genomes are at least 10–12% less identical than is commonly claimed. The human-chimp common ancestor paradigm, which claims a nearly identical DNA content, is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than real factual data.
But lets aknowledge there are similarities. So what ? That can simply mean, that the origin was the same designer, which created men and chimps by similar means.
Who do you think you are dealing with, naïve aborigines?
No, but if you suppose to provide evidence for strong atheism, or a world view, where nature is all there is, you need to try harder. So far, you are not convincing at all.
You are the one making baseless assertions
I have not simply asserted, God exists. But members here have made repetedly the assertion, that God does not exist. Who is making baseless assertions here ? how about you stop acusing me without reason, and provide scientific facts that lead logically and rationally to good reasons to accept that philosophical naturalism provides the best explanation for our existence ?
you have no proof of any kind.
No , i don’t. But lets say, i would have proofs for Gods existence. What would you do in that case ?
I am actually going to write a little stage play about this Topic. The dialogue will go something like this:
(theist) “See that burning bush? God did it”
I would rather say this : see the complex, specified, codified information storen in the genome ? we do not know of any cause of such information, than a intelligent mind. Therefore, its granted, God is the creator of life.
(atheist) “Nah, I’m sure there is a scientific explanation for that bush catching fire”
why should a explanation, that invokes natural causes, be scientific, but one, that invokes God, is not scientific ?
You see, your error starts right here. We start from the same initial situation. Science has discovered that DNA contains codified information.
My answer : God did it, since all known codified information was produced by a intelligent mind.
Your answer : Nah, i have a scientific explanation, natural forces throug potentials ore whatever put the information there.
Please explain : in what sense is your explanation ” scientific ” ?
And secondly : what evidence do you have, that alternative natural forces produced the codified information stored in the genome ?
I answer you : You have NONE !!
Your standpoint is baseless, actually, no. Its based on faith. Faith, that chance, or physical necessity can produce , guess what ?!! - a miracle !!
Because only a miracle could produce Shakespeares Hamlet without Intelligence involved. And so, the information stored in DNA…...
(theist) “See, baseless assertions!........You don’t know!!..........God exists!!!”
Translated to my case : indeed : when there is no evidence whatsoever, that chance, or physical necessity can produce codified information, but we have plenty of examples , like books, or computer codes, that are produced by humans, than we can
conclude on solid ground, that the information stored in DNA was created by a intelligent mind : God.
And getting back to bats :
Humans , intelligent beings, have the hability to produce radar and echolon systems. Chance, or physical necessity, don’t.
Evolution is not able to produce irreducible complex systems. God can make them all at the same time.
What came first: the egg, or the chicken ?