If it is proved true, the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis proves the existence of God.

1. The theory of Abiogenesis conforms quite well to the Biblical account. Abiogenesis postulates that life came from nonliving matter. The Bible says that God brought life from nonliving matter.

2. The theory of evolution conforms quite well to the Biblical account.

a. Evolution says that life started in the oceans. The Bible says that God brought life first in the oceans.
b. Evolution says that spread from the oceans to the land. The Bible says that God brought life first in the oceans and then the land.

3. Evidence for the theory of evolution reveals that evolution is directed by changes in the gene code. The gene code is essentially a complex language which directs the changes in living matter by changes in the gene sequence. Even the simplest of living organisms contains a messaging system which rivals the capacity of a modern super computer.

In our world, messages and languages are only produced by intelligent beings. The gene code is evidence that only an intelligent being could have created such a process.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

If it is proved true, the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis proves the existence of God.

---

Proved? What can NOT be proved "true" is the existence of God. Not even in your illogical conundrums !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The theory of Abiogenesis conforms quite well to the Biblical account. Abiogenesis postulates that life came from nonliving matter. The Bible says that God brought life from nonliving matter.

---

Not completely true. The bible states that everything was created as it is. From fish to plant to human. For that there is no scientific support at all. The difference is in the definition of "life".
Note : there is no Theory of Abiogenesis. It is a thesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The theory of evolution conforms quite well to the Biblical account.
a. Evolution says that life started in the oceans. The Bible says that God brought life first in the oceans.

---

The Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about where live started.
The thesis of abiogenesis suggests that it is likely that water was involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Evolution says that spread from the oceans to the land. The Bible says that God brought life first in the oceans and then the land.

---

Not correct. First life DEVELOPED in a watery environment. You are just making up unsupported statements.
And I read nowhere in the bible that Adam had to swim his way into paradise. But there is confusion and there are different accounts in the bible about the sequence of creation.

First creation account :
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man (Genesis 1:25-26)

Second creation account :
The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Evidence for the theory of evolution reveals that evolution is directed by changes in the gene code. The gene code is essentially a complex language which directs the changes in living matter by changes in the gene sequence. Even the simplest of living organisms contains a messaging system which rivals the capacity of a modern super computer.

---

The Theory of Evolution says nothing of the gene code of first life. Darwin was not even aware of any gene code, RNA, or DNA. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" does not suggest anything on DNA or even an extremely simplified format of RNA. Or any alternative form of reproduction. Like using rare clay's.
WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW. First life was most probably unlike any life form of life we know today.
Genes, RNA, and DNA are just recent additions to the Theory of Evolution, not the pillars on which the theory is build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

In our world, messages and languages are only produced by intelligent beings.

---

In OUR world. But that is an entire different world than the world in which first life developed. And the one in which life evolved over the last couple of hundreds of millions of years. The period of messages produced by intelligent beings just started a couple of million years ago. And the period of languages just started some hundred of thousand of years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The gene code is evidence that only an intelligent being could have created such a process.

---

WHERE is the OSE evidence , that only an intelligent being could have created such a process ?
After approx. 3.500.000.000 years of life on earth and multiples of that number of generations of increasing in number and complexity there is not even the slightest iota of evidence that only an intelligent being could have created such a process. There is not even the slightest of evidence that such an intelligent being exists.

Our human DNA contains almost all genes and codes that ever were needed in evolution to arrive from early life at homo sapiens .
From a religious point of view a "perfect" deity would not waste so much energy on "his" creating of all that unnecessary complex DNA for each different lifeform. Neither of leaving all that complex unnecessary information in new "created" life forms. It only makes each new life form less perfect.
From an evolutionary point of view however it makes complete sense, it even sort of proves the process of evolution !

CONCLUSION :

No, neither the thesis of abiogenesis nor the Theory of Evolution proves the existence of God, and it never will, in any possible way. Science is about explanation and reporting of OSE'd findings, not about speculation and belief.

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

If it is proved true, the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis proves the existence of God.

---

1. It will never be proven true. (not in the sense that I feel you wish it to be proven, at least)

2. Still no evidence De Maria? Just your own conjecture?

Knock yourself out with twisted logic trying to justify your faith. It's entertaining to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

1. It will never be proven true.

---

Never? You seem to have lost your taste for evolution? Isn't that strange?

Quote:

---

(not in the sense that I feel you wish it to be proven, at least)

---

What sense is that? Is it the sense that if the preponderance of the evidence points to the probability that evolution is true ?

Quote:

---

2. Still no evidence De Maria? Just your own conjecture?

---

Certainly. My conjecture is based on the evidence.

Say for instance the message, "bring me a donut". If you saw this message written on the sand in the ocean, would you presume the motion of the waves had written it? Or would you presume that a human being had written it?

Yet each messages passed on by the genes in the simplest of living organisms is millions of times more complicated than "bring me a donut" and you presume that these messages were put there by accident.

Which makes more sense, my theory that God exists and caused those messages to be written? Or yours that those messages occurred by random unintelligent events?

Which theory is based on evidence? Which theory is based on logic? Which theory is based on reason? And which is based on a simple desire to deny the existence of God?

Quote:

---

Knock yourself out with twisted logic trying to justify your faith. It's entertaining to watch.

---

Thanks. But I didn't need your invitation.

What is funny though, is that you guys were all for the theory of evolution when you thought it proved that God does not exist. But suddenly the tables are turned. Since the theory of evolution needs the existence of God to make any sense at all, I no longer see the enthusiasm in you or the other nonbelievers as you had before.

That's entertainment!! :D

Sincerely,

De Maria

I have always maintained that the theory of evolution is not at odds with the existence of a god. Its not even at odds with Genesis unless you take it very literally.

But evolution doesn't "prove" the existence of god. The existence of a god is a matter of faith, not concrete proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Proved? What can NOT be proved "true" is the existence of God. Not even in your illogical conundrums !

---

The frustration in your message is obvious. Simple denials without any facts to back them up.

Quote:

---

Not completely true. The bible states that everything was created as it is.

---

Please provide the relevant quote.

Quote:

---

From fish to plant to human. For that there is no scientific support at all. The difference is in the definition of "life".

---

Please provide the supposed difference in the definition of life.

Quote:

---

Note : there is no Theory of Abiogenesis. It is a thesis.

---

Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis - EvoWiki
Since none of this evidence is refuted by the fact that we don't yet have a solid theory of abiogenesis, it's just silly to claim that evolution is rendered ...
wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_baseless_without_a_theory_of_abiogene sis

I would tend to agree. But as you can see in the quote above, it is popularly considered a theory and no one has ever objected to it being discussed as a theory until now. However, if you want to split hairs, a thesis it is.

Therefore, the THESIS of abiogenesis predicts that nonliving matter can spontaneously become living matter. However, scientific experiments to reproduce life from nonliving matter in a laboratory have all failed to do so. But I for one, hope they succeed. Because when they succeed, they will prove that intelligent beings can create life. And that will be more evidence that God created life.

Quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about where live started.

---

Sure it does. The oldest fossils are of a group of bacteria called cyanobacteria. They are found in oceans today.

Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, blue-green bacteria or Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis. The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the bacteria (Greek: κυανός (kyanós) = blue). They are a significant component of the marine nitrogen cycle and an important primary producer in many areas of the ocean, but are also found on land.
Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may seem surprising that bacteria can leave fossils at all. However, one particular group of bacteria, the cyanobacteria or "blue-green algae," have left a fossil record that extends far back into the Precambrian - the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3500 million years old and are among the oldest fossils currently known. Cyanobacteria are larger than most bacteria, and many secrete a thick cell wall. More importantly, cyanobacteria may form large layered structures, called stromatolites (more or less dome-shaped) or oncolites (round). These structures form as a mat of cyanobacteria growths in a marine environment, trapping sediment and sometimes secreting calcium carbonate. When sectioned very thinly, fossil stromatolites may be found to contain exquisitely preserved fossil cyanobacteria and algae.

These early cells belonged to the group of prokaryotic cells (in contrast to the more complex structures of eukaryotic cells). Prokaryotes are small cells which lack the complex internal structures, like mitochondria and chloroplasts, found in eukaryotic cells. Although prokaryotes possess DNA on a chromosome, it is not enclosed in a nucleus.
The Evolution of Life

The fossil evidence says that life started in the oceans.

Quote:

---

The thesis of abiogenesis suggests that it is likely that water was involved.

---

define: thesis
# an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument
# dissertation: a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

That tends to confirm the fossil evidence which says that life started in the oceans.

Quote:

---

Not correct. First life DEVELOPED in a watery environment.

---

An ocean is a watery environment.

Quote:

---

You are just making up unsupported statements.

---

You seem to be supporting my statements very well, thanks.

Quote:

---

And I read nowhere in the bible that Adam had to swim his way into paradise.

---

Does the theory of evolution say that man evolved in the ocean? That's news to me? I thought the oldest human fossils were found in Africa? And looking at our appendages, we certainly didn't evolve any swimming apparatus.

Interesting new theory. Have you got the evidence to support it?

Quote:

---

But there is confusion

---

Only to those who don't understand Scripture. The study of Scripture is itself a body of knowledge. A science in fact. It entails studying the culture of the people who wrote it, learning their expressions and understanding their motives.

So, I can understand how someone, like yourself, who has not studied Scripture would be confused by it.

Quote:

---

and there are different accounts in the bible about the sequence of creation.

---

Not so. That is how it seems to the untrained lay man who reads the Scripture without a background in Semitic studies.

Quote:

---

First creation account :
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man (Genesis 1:25-26)

---

The first chapter of genesis is the summary of the entire Creation of the universe. It is described era by era.

Quote:

---

Second creation account :
The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

---

Note that the Lord HAD formed already the beasts:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts

Quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution says nothing of the gene code of first life. Darwin was not even aware of any gene code, RNA, or DNA. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" does not suggest anything on DNA or even an extremely simplified format of RNA. Or any alternative form of reproduction.

---

You mean the original theory. But science has advanced beyond Darwin's day. And we are now aware of dna sequencing. In fact the gene code is being decoded as we speak:

NOVA Online | Cracking the Code of Life | Watch the Program Here
the Human Genome Project 1000 letters a second a parts list running time 05:52 ... Chapter 6, 6. Genetic Variation whose code is it? remarkably similar ...
NOVA Online | Cracking the Code of Life | Watch the Program Here

Quote:

---

Like using rare clay's.
WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW. First life was most probably unlike any life form of life we know today. Genes, RNA, and DNA are just recent additions to the Theory of Evolution, not the pillars on which the theory is build.

---

I guess you hadn't heard that the pillars had been changed. Genes, DNA AND RNA are the new pillars of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution lives and dies by gene sequencing.

Quote:

---

In OUR world. But that is an entire different world than the world in which first life developed.

---

Ah so. But life principles are the same then as they are now. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to speculate on the evidence. In fact, we wouldn't even be able to recognize fossils of living creatures unless they had something in common with life today.

Quote:

---

And the one in which life evolved over the last couple of hundreds of millions of years. The period of messages produced by intelligent beings just started a couple of million years ago. And the period of languages just started some hundred of thousand of years ago.

---

And the languages which we produced are evidence that language is produced by intelligent beings.

Quote:

---

WHERE is the OSE evidence that only an intelligent being could have created such a process ?

---

It's a simple premise that can be validated easily.

If you see a simple message written in the sand, such as "bring me donuts". Do you assume the action of wind and rain produced this message? Of course not. You know that messages are all written by human beings.

Yet the simplest message in the simplest organism is a million times more complex than this one.

So, the logical syllogism is like this.

1. Intelligent beings write messages.
2. Gene sequences are messages.
3. Gene sequences must have been written by an intelligent being.

Quote:

---

After approx. 3.500.000.000 years of life on earth and multiples of that number of generations of increasing in number and complexity there is not even the slightest iota of evidence that only an intelligent being could have created such a process. There is not even the slightest of evidence that such an intelligent being exists.

---

You can only come to that conclusion if you want to prove a presupposition. Obviously, you want to prove that God does not exist. Therefore you ignore the evidence and the logic which leads to the conclusion that God exists.

Quote:

---

Our human DNA contains almost all genes and codes that ever were needed in evolution to arrive from early life at homo sapiens .

---

And evidence indicates that DNA contains messages. Which further indicates that an intelligent being had to produce them.

Quote:

---

From a religious point of view a "perfect" deity would not waste so much energy on "his" creating of all that unnecessary complex DNA for each different lifeform.

---

That presupposes that you know why the perfect deity created anything at all. Do you? If you don't, then how can you characterize it as waste?

If, on the other hand, He has purposes that are unknown to you, then it would not be waste at all.

Quote:

---

Neither of leaving all that complex unnecessary information in new "created" life forms. It only makes each new life form less perfect.

---

First of all, I know that God called creation "good". But I'm not aware that God called anything in creation "perfect". So you'll have to produce that evidence.

However, your use of the word "perfect" still presupposes that you know why God created anything, what His intent and purpose.

For instance, what is a perfect car? Is it a vehicle that flies? Or is it a vehicle that is economical? Or is it a vehicle that is comfortable or one that is fast?

So, if someone thinks a fast car is perfect, but you prefer a comfortable car, your opinion doesn't matter. The same with Creation. If God has called anything which He created perfect, then it is perfect to Him and your opinion doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

From an evolutionary point of view

---

An evolutionary point of view? Are you ascribing intelligence to the process of evolution? If so, then you have confirmed that evolution points to the existence of an intelligent Creator.

Quote:

---

however it makes complete sense, it even sort of proves the process of evolution !

---

Well yes it does. And it makes perfect sense that God would reveal Himself therein. This is also consistent with Scripture:

Romans 1 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Quote:

---

CONCLUSION :

No, neither the thesis of abiogenesis nor the Theory of Evolution proves the existence of God, and it never will, in any possible way. Science is about explanation and reporting of OSE'd findings, not about speculation and belief.

---

Sure they do. However you need to be objective in your study of the evidence in order to see it.

Quote:

---

:rolleyes:

·

---

:D

Sincerely,

De Maria

Too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I have always maintained that the theory of evolution is not at odds with the existence of a god. Its not even at odds with Genesis unless you take it very literally.

But evolution doesn't "prove" the existence of god. The existence of a god is a matter of faith, not concrete proof.

---

Thank you for this comment. I don't believe that any sensible person could disagree with this point of view.

De Maria : your post #6 : I really tried my best, but all your post did was...
Note : it was NOT only the length of your post that did it...

What I do not understand is that board management is not privately whispering in your ear that you are making a fool of yourself with that approach...

:rolleyes:

·

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

The Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about where live started.
The thesis of abiogenesis suggests that it is likely that water was involved.


Not correct. First life DEVELOPED in a watery environment. You are just making up unsupported statements.

---

where is your OSE to prove this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

WHERE is the OSE evidence , that only an intelligent being could have created such a process ?
After approx. 3.500.000.000 years of life on earth and multiples of that number of generations of increasing in number and complexity there is not even the slightest iota of evidence that only an intelligent being could have created such a process. There is not even the slightest of evidence that such an intelligent being exists.

---

Study just human physiology.

Learn how the kidneys function - to control fluid, electrolytes, acid/base balance, calcium metabolism, red cell production, blood pressure. Note the complex interactions with other organ systems.

Study endocrinology - hormones. Learn the multiple layers of feedback control and interaction with the nervous system

Study the krebs cycle or oxidative phosphorylation and ask yourself

how could a random, purposeless process like evolution accomplish this? Where is the proof?



Here is an analogy.

computer viruses - did they come about randomly or by someone designing them?

Computer controlled fuel injection, cylinder deactivation, antilock brakes - these systems were engineered - i.e. intelligently designed.


The computer that adjusts fuel air mixture in your car's engine by monitoring and taking into account such things as throttle position, engine rpm, octane, etc. is so much more simple than glucose control in humans. Yet if it were not for intelligence, we might still be adjusting carburetors.


Houses.
Evolution would have us living in caves, since they are formed by a natural process.

Take something as simple as an igloo. Anybody can tell they are man made and not made by "nature." When you look at your home - the foundation the walls, roof, electrical, hvac plumbing, etc. are all intelligently built - we don't see anything like it in "nature" - we all know that they were created. There is no theory that says natural processes like a tornado or flood or mudslide "evolved" houses that we live in, yet so many are willing to believe that evolution created their own body which is tens of orders more complex than an ordinary house. :confused:

Inthebox,

You are still in your box. The reason the things that humans design don't change is because there is no mechanism for them to change. This however is not the case with life. Life starts with basic and gets complex over billions of years. If you want to compare it to humans design, it compare more to how humans didn't just start making complex machines we started with very simple things that we found in our environment and combined them over time to make more complex tools. However in the example it is design and in life it is selection. Similar but different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Inthebox,

You are still in your box. The reason the things that humans design don't change is because there is no mechanism for them to change. This however is not the case with life. Life starts with basic and gets complex over billions of years. If you want to compare it to humans design, it compare more to how humans didn't just start making complex machines we started with very simple things that we found in our environment and combined them over time to make more complex tools. However in the example it is design and in life it is selection. Similar but different.

---

You've just proved that it took intelligence to design the mechanisms of life and evolution.

You are comparing human design, that is, designs created by human intelligence to evolution.

Thanks for the support although I'm sure it was unintentional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Inthebox,

You are still in your box. The reason the things that humans design don't change is because there is no mechanism for them to change. This however is not the case with life. Life starts with basic and gets complex over billions of years. If you want to compare it to humans design, it compare more to how humans didn't just start making complex machines we started with very simple things that we found in our environment and combined them over time to make more complex tools. However in the example it is design and in life it is selection. Similar but different.

---

Are you referring to the design of the human body not changing?
-In that case don't evolutionists claim that the mechanism of change is "beneficial" mutations. I'm still waiting for a human population that can "naturally" see infrared, or have the ability to "read minds," surely these are beneficial traits that would have a selective reproductive advantage and given the thousands of generations it has been since we broke off from other primates we should have already "evolved" these abilities?



Or do you mean what humans design? Again, look at transportation, the internet etc.. Changing and advancing because intelligence is at the root of invention and neccessity, convienence, and value are the selective factors.


The second bolded statement - is just that - an unproven statement.

How did the first cells learn to live together as one? To form specialized tissue? To form different organ systems? How did these organ systems learn to function together in one organism. You say it is in the genetic code of stem cells, but how did this information come about in the first place?

The cell is not "basic" it is a complex factory that produces specialized coordinated products and has the ability to reproduce, defend itself, make energy etc.. Darwin did not know this, modern science demonstrates this and gives us objective evidence of design. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

where is your OSE to prove this?

---

In my first query the point was that "The Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about where life
Started", i.e. that your claim holds no water.

What is really interesting here is that you failed to react to that... Where does the Theory of
Evolution says anything about where life started?
I wonder why you failed to do so...

That first life DEVELOPED in a watery environment is a logical conclusion : all the processes on
Which life is based require water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Study just human physiology.

---

In my second query I asked why "only an intelligent being could have created such a process".
Do you really suggest that I have to study human physiology for an answer to that?
I asked YOU for YOUR explanation of YOUR statement.
An explanation that you apparently do not seem to have!

What is really interesting here is that you did not react to my statement opposing your suggestion
As if only an intelligent being could have created such a process.
I wonder why you failed to reply to that...

All you have is your belief. No problem that you believe that.
But what you believe has little to do with reality...

:>)

.

[QUOTE=inthebox] I'm still waiting for a human population that can "naturally" see infrared
QUOTE]

Let's tactical this one first. In order for a trait to evolve it has to give reproduction benefit to the individual that causes that particular organism to pass on it's genes more than other similar organisms. If there is no selective pressure to change the creature won't. So in order for the ability to see infrared to develop it would have to be an advantage to see shorter wave lenghts than we currently see. Do women favor men who can tell the difference between this shade of red and that shade of red? no. Is person that is able to see shorter wave lenghts able to gather resources better? no. Is there any advantage at all to being able to see slightly shorter wave lenghts of light than what is the current average of the population? no. We could test for it and take the top 20% of people that can see shorter wave lenghts breed them in isolation and weed out the bottom 80% with every generation(similar to what we do with farm animals to make them how we want them). Repeat that process for say 10 or 20 thousand years and you would have a population of people that could see infrared. Something similar is happening to Pacific islanders except it was the ability to see underwater instead of seeing infrared. Although in this particular case the lady in the article isn't sure if it's genetic or behavioral yet.
Health & Medical News - Asian child divers see better underwater - 20/06/2003

Why is this so hard to understand that it doesn't happen all at one it is very slight changes that produce a very small advantage that drives change and that many small changes over a long period add up to big changes. Even if you don't believe it you should be able to grasp the concept and know it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

De Maria : your post #6 : I really tried my best, but all your post did was...

---

Refute your points.

Quote:

---

Note : it was NOT only the length of your post that did it...

---

Nah. That is your excuse for having no answer.

Quote:

---

What I do not understand is that board management is not privately whispering in your ear that you are making a fool of yourself with that approach...

---

The only reason you would think that is if they are privately whispering in your ear that you are making a fool of yourself.:eek:

Bye!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Refute your points

---

I do not have to refute anything till YOU first have provided OSE for YOUR claims. Why don't you reply to my queries first, and in short readable answers ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

That is your excuse for having no answer

---

I have answers enough, but I do not waste my time by replying to your diarrhoea of endless chapters filled with empty words !

:>)

.

[QUOTE=michealb]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I'm still waiting for a human population that can "naturally" see infrared
QUOTE]

Let's tactical this one first. In order for a trait to evolve it has to give reproduction benefit to the individual that causes that particular organism to pass on it's genes more than other similar organisms. If there is no selective pressure to change the creature won't. So in order for the ability to see infrared to develop it would have to be an advantage to see shorter wave lenghts than we currently see. Do women favor men who can tell the difference between this shade of red and that shade of red? no. Is person that is able to see shorter wave lenghts able to gather resources better? no. Is there any advantage at all to being able to see slightly shorter wave lenghts of light than what is the current average of the population? no. We could test for it and take the top 20% of people that can see shorter wave lenghts breed them in isolation and weed out the bottom 80% with every generation(similar to what we do with farm animals to make them how we want them). Repeat that process for say 10 or 20 thousand years and you would have a population of people that could see infrared. Something similar is happening to Pacific islanders except it was the ability to see underwater instead of seeing infrared. Although in this particular case the lady in the article isn't sure if it's genetic or behavioral yet.
Health & Medical News - Asian child divers see better underwater - 20/06/2003

Why is this so hard to understand that it doesn't happen all at one it is very slight changes that produce a very small advantage that drives change and that many small changes over a long period of time add up to big changes. Even if you don't believe it you should be able to grasp the concept and know it works.

---

You are proving ID's point


Mankind proves intelligent design.




Need to go faster - invent the automobile - evolution did not make us faster

Need to see in the dark - invent night vision - evolution did nod make us see better

Need to defend yourself - invent the gun - evolution did not give us claws or sharper teeth

Need to fly - plane invented - evolution did not give us wings

Need to get well - drugs, medical equipment designed tested and used. Evolution does not give us immunity.




What I can prove is that mutations, evolution's means of change, cause disease.

What I can prove is - humans using their intelligence to design things advances all of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

In my second query I asked why "only an intelligent being could have created such a process".
Do you really suggest that I have to study human physiology for an answer to that?


.

---

Yes, if you knew cell biology, human physiology, you would see the evidence that this is not possible or provable by evolution.

But alas, you choose to remain uninformed. :(

Evolution gave us a brain (well most of us) so that we could invent those things. Intellect is a by product of evolution.

Prove that.

I'll spot you from one celled organisms,. no... I'll spot you from the primates' common ancestor to prove that.


Show me the exact mutations that made human language possible, brains larger, abstract thinking. I won't even ask you to prove the selective factors at play at the time of these supposed mutations. ;)

Quote:

---

Intellect is a by product of evolution

---

:eek:


So you are saying evolution created intelligent design???????

Wow, the mental contortions it takes to deny the obvious :D

Health & Medical News - Asian child divers see better underwater - 20/06/2003

Good objective reporting.

Notice how they did not presuppose that this is due to some evolutionary mutation. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Yes, if you knew cell biology, human physiology, you would see the evidence that this is not possible or provable by evolution.

---

I do not have to study cell biology, human physiology, or anything else to query the existence of a supra-natural almighty omniscient entity that has great interest in my personal ideas and sex life...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

But alas, you choose to remain uninformed.

---

But I am NOT "uninformed". You are free to BELIEVE in a "god" entity with all the "hooters and bells" of your religion. And I am free to accept life as it comes, and query the existence of that supra-natural almighty omniscient entity that has great interest in my personal ideas and sex life...

Unlike Creation the Theory of Evolution is a valid and OSE'd explanation of how life developed from the first cell to what it is today. Why would I introduce the mambo jambo of some fundamentalists of one of many religions based on the existence of an unproved-to-exist supra-natural almighty omniscient entity that has great interest in my personal ideas and sex life??

:>)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Prove that.

I'll spot you from one celled organisms, ........no......... I'll spot you from the primates' common ancestor to prove that.


Show me the exact mutations that made human language possible, brains larger, abstract thinking. I won't even ask you to prove the selective factors at play at the time of these supposed mutations. ;)

:eek:


So you are saying evolution created intelligent design???????

Wow, the mental contortions it takes to deny the obvious :D

---

Your not going to get that our technology just isn't that good yet. The point is though the jury doesn't have to witness the guy robbing the bank to convict him they look at the evidence. If you find the guy that looks like the guy your looking for and he has most of the money that was missing. Chances are you have your culprit. Same with evolution we expected to find transitional fossils and we have found them. The evidence is in front of you the only people who don't see it, don't want to see it because it conflicts with their agenda. I can't explain it to you because you don't want to have it explained to you.

You can't debate someone's whose whole argument is god did it because even if you disprove that god did it, the new argument is god did it that way or that god put that evidence there to fool the non-believers.

It's very close to the "you can't argue with crazy" argument. The only thing you can do is out crazy them but sane and logical arguments don't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your not going to get that our technology just isn't that good yet. The point is though the jury doesn't have to witness the guy robbing the bank to convict him they look at the evidence. If you find the guy that looks like the guy your looking for and he has most of the money that was missing. Chances are you have your culprit. Same with evolution we expected to find transitional fossils and we have found them. The evidence is in front of you the only people who don't see it, don't want to see it because it conflicts with their agenda. I can't explain it to you because you don't want to have it explained to you.

You can't debate someone's whose whole argument is god did it because even if you disprove that god did it,[/B] the new argument is god did it that way or that god put that evidence there to fool the non-believers.

It's very close to the "you can't argue with crazy" argument. The only thing you can do is out crazy them but sane and logical arguments don't work.

---

Good analogy, technology does change things, take your crime scene:

Were it not for DNA, videocameras at atms, the Duke lacross guys would be falsely in jail.

How often has a prisoner been found innocent years after a seemingly solid conviction only to have modern DNA techniques prove them innocent.


The same is true with evolution - circumstantial evidence may concur with supposed theory, but with genetics, molecular knowledge advancing what was once accepted is being debated.


Here is one for you:

Quote:

---

Genome Of Simplest Animal Reveals Ancient Lineage, Confounding Array Of Complex Capabilities


"Trichoplax has had just as much time to evolve as humans, but because of its morphological simplicity, it is tempting to think of it as a surrogate for an early animal,"....

Earlier mitochondrial DNA studies suggested that this "mother of all metazoans," Trichoplax, was the earliest branch, before sponges diverged, but this remains [/B]debatable—even among collaborators[/B]


"Trichoplax is an ancient lineage—a good representation of the ancestral genome that is shedding light of the kinds of genes, the structures of genes, and even how these genes were arranged on the genome in the common ancestor 600 million years ago," said Srivastava. "It has retained a lot of primitive features relative to other living animals."

Trichoplax has no neurons, but has many genes that are associated with neural function in more complex animals. "It lacks a nervous system, but it still is able to respond to environmental stimuli. "It has genes, such as ion channels and receptors, that we associate with neuronal functions, but no neurons have ever been reported," explained Rokhsar


Of the 11,514 genes identified in the six chromosomes of Trichoplax, 80 percent are shared with cnidarians and bilaterians. Trichoplax also shares over 80 percent of its introns—the regions within genes that are not translated into proteins—with humans. Even the arrangement of genes is conserved between the Trichoplax and human genomes

---

So this simple ancient organism has not "evolved" but shares 80% of humans introns?

It has genes for neurons but they are not expressed? What is the selective advantage of keeping genes that are not expressed? Why are they expressed in humans but not in them?

Maybe the plan for complexity was there at the beinning all along.


They can't even figure out where it belongs in darwin's tree of life because it is so complex yet simple .





Advancing scientific discovery disproving long held evolutionary beliefs.


And you have yet to prove that God is not the creator... "even" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

How often has a prisoner been found innocent years after a seemingly solid conviction only to have modern DNA techniques prove them innocent.

---

An excellent reason for total rejection of Capital Punishment, even now we have DNA techniques.
In view of that I wonder why in general the right-wing Christian majority in the US is so silent every time someone is executed in "the land of the free"...

:>)

.

I agree, :cool:

Executing a criminal is not Christian.

A convicted criminal's worse punishment is life in prison with no hope for parole.


But there are Christians that care for those in prison. :)

PrisonFellowship.org - Prison Fellowship


America is the land of the "free," and there are laws, and if you break a law, you accept the consequences.

I can't use that "America is the land of the free" line on a cop who just pulled me over for doing 15 mph over the limit.:cool:

I think the majority of us "right-wing Christians," forgive me for being human, have more sympathy for the victims of these criminals. :(

Hey, I found a "beneficial" mutation ;)

Quote:

---

Scientists discover gene related to eye disease - Breaking News - Kentucky.com


The study also identified a mutated form of TLR3 that protects against dry AMD. That mutation might point to a treatment, said Dr. Jayakrishna Ambati, a retinal surgeon in UK's Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences.

When TLR3 is activated, it causes infected cells to die.

"If you have this mutation, your TLR3 gene doesn't work properly," Ambati said. "These people are protected."

---

Ah.. science showing us the way.

Quote:

---

Cell changed into another type in a 'major leap' - Medicine - Kentucky.com

Someday doctors might be able to use a patient's own cells to treat disease or injury without turning to stem cells taken from embryos.

The work is "a major leap" in reprogramming cells from one kind to another

---

Remember all the hype? Bush is evil because he would not further fund esc research, because he stood by his religious convivtions.

Well it looks like science and the free market have proven the naysayers and haters wrong.

Now who programmed these cells in the first place?

Is a computer program the result of ID or natural selection working on mutations? You decide.

You still don't get it. You have to prove god exists. You can't just say god did and I don't need any evidence because god is above evidence. If we all thought like that we would still be living in caves. If you want to say god did something you need proof. Evolution has with stood 150 years of scientific testing and every piece of evidence that has ever been found points to evolution and just because you choose to ignore that evidence doesn't make you right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I think the majority of us "right-wing Christians," forgive me for being human, have more sympathy for the victims of these criminals.

---

You are hereby "absolved of being human". Still that does not make up for the inconsistency between the Ten Commandments (a basis of Christianity) and the lacking general Christian support for stopping murdering people out of revenge via the legal system.

"Thou shall not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments. Not some liberal slogun.

:>)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your not going to get that our technology just isn't that good yet. The point is though the jury doesn't have to witness the guy robbing the bank to convict him they look at the evidence. If you find the guy that looks like the guy your looking for and he has most of the money that was missing. Chances are you have your culprit. Same with evolution we expected to find transitional fossils and we have found them. The evidence is in front of you the only people who don't see it, don't want to see it because it conflicts with their agenda. I can't explain it to you because you don't want to have it explained to you.

You can't debate someones whose whole argument is god did it because even if you disprove that god did it, the new argument is god did it that way or that god put that evidence there to fool the non-believers.

It's very close to the "you can't argue with crazy" argument. The only thing you can do is out crazy them but sane and logical arguments don't work.

---

Lol!!

Again, you have just provided the exact logic why evolution proves the existence of God.

1. the jury doesn't have to witness the guy robbing the bank to convict him
2. If you find the guy that looks like the guy your looking for and he has most of the money that was missing. Chances are you have your culprit.

So, we don't have to see God create the universe. But we know that no one but God could create the universe because the universe could not have happened on its own.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

You still don't get it. You have to prove god exists.

---

No you don't. You can look at the evidence of Creation, see that intelligence doesn't make itself, and realize that only Intelligence can create intelligence.

You can look at the universe and see that it has order and realize that no where in this universe can we get order from chaos. Therefore God must have established the order in the universe.

You can look at life and realize that even the simplest life is too complex to happen by accident. And that should be proof that an Intelligence far beyond ours created life.

Quote:

---

You can't just say god did and I don't need any evidence because god is above evidence.

---

It's the opposite. You can't just say God doesn't exist because the bulk of the evidence points to a Supernatural Being having created the natural world.

You can't get beyond this one logical statement. Something can not come from nothing.

Quote:

---

If we all thought like that we would still be living in caves. If you want to say god did something you need proof.

---

Again, all we need is evidence. It's the same old parable. If you find a watch in the forest, do you assume that the wood and trees and dirt took it upon themselves to make that watch? Do you assume that nature simply made it by accident?

Of course not. You understand that an intelligent being made it. Life is a million times more complex than a mere human trinket. And you want us to believe it came about by accident.

Which makes more sense?

Quote:

---

Evolution has with stood 150 years of scientific testing and every piece of evidence that has ever been found points to evolution and just because you choose to ignore that evidence doesn't make you right.

---

Belief in God has been around 5000 years. Belief in Christ 2000. But truth is not measured in years. It is discovered by logical and reasonable inquiry.

The assumption you make that the simplest of life forms can result from nonthinking matter simply takes too much faith for me to believe. I don't have that kind of faith in rocks and chemicals that they can suddenly come together to form, in even the simplest life forms, an organism so complex they dwarf even the greatest technological feats of mankind.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

In my first query....

---

You prove still that you don't understand the concept or the logic involved in this question.

1. You can't prove that life came into being spontaneously from unintelligent matter. Therefore you are showing faith in unintelligent matter that it can spontaneously combine to form complex life. Because although simple life forms are called simple. They are only simple in relation to the complex life forms. Even the simplest life form is more complex than a super computer.

2. On the other hand, although we can't prove that God created life, we have faith that God created life, because we see that intelligent beings can create complex systems like computers and watches; and send simple messages like "bring the donuts" which although they are far inferior to even the simplest life form, they certainly could not happen by accident.

And that is the difference. Against all evidence, you have faith in inanimate unintelligent matter. We see the same evidence and it leads us to have faith in God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

You can't prove that life came into being spontaneously from unintelligent matter

---

I do not have to prove that. The topic here is The Theory of Evolution, and that theory does not include the thesis of abiogenesis.
Your position is the cloudy one : centered on the existence of God, but you can not prove that there is a supra-natural deity that has created everything. Where is the OSE for that?

I do not have "faith" in inanimate unintelligent matter. What a nonsensical claim !
You claim we do not see the same evidence . WHAT evidence ? OSE or some subjective belief?
Seeing the total lack of OSE, God only seems to exist between your ears.

:>)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I do not have to prove that. The topic here is The Theory of Evolution, and that theory does not include the thesis of abiogenesis.

---

The title section only gives so much space. I clarified and extended the subject matter in the OP.

Quote:

---

Your position is the cloudy one : centered on the existence of God, but you can not prove that there is a supra-natural deity that has created everything. Where is the OSE for that?

---

Again, you don't seem to understand or you pretend not to understand.

You are placing your faith in non intelligent matter. You believe that non intelligent matter can create complex life forms. I say complex because even the simplest life forms are complex in comparison to man's creations.

Quote:

---

I do not have "faith" in inanimate unintelligent matter.

---

Do you believe that unintelligent matter spontaneously generated life.

Quote:

---

What a nonsensical claim !

---

Unless you have another option, here's what I see. Either you believe that life was spontaneously generated by unintelligent matter.

Or you believe that God created life.

Is there a third option? If not, then you either have faith in unintelligent matter or you have faith in God.

Quote:

---

You claim we do not see the same evidence . WHAT evidence ? OSE or some subjective belief? Seeing the total lack of OSE, God only seems to exist between your ears.

:>)

.

---

You live in denial.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

The title section only gives so much space. I clarified and extended the subject matter in the OP.

---

Irrelevant. I do not have to prove that. The topic here is The Theory of Evolution, and that theory does not include the thesis of abiogenesis. That this does not suit you in your quest is not my fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Again, you don't seem to understand or you pretend not to understand.

---

I understand that your position is the cloudy one : centered on the existence of God, but you can not prove that there is a supra-natural deity that has created everything. Where is the OSE for that? You did not reply to that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Do you believe that unintelligent matter spontaneously generated life.

---

It all depend on how you describe life. If that is something that simply can copy itself, yes than it is a valid possibility. Crystals and rare clay models show the possibility of unassisted copying of molecules. One step further and you have life. We simply do not know how intricate first life was, but it must have been extremely simple. Only theists claim that out of nothing suddenly a complete human being arose.
Abiogenesis : a much more valid possibility than the existence of an immortal always existing deity that "created" everything in 6 days : a totally unrealistic and unsupported mythical claim without even the slightest iota of OSE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Unless you have another option, here's what I see. Either you believe that life was spontaneously generated by unintelligent matter. Or you believe that God created life.

---

What a closedmindedness ! What a nonsensical claim !
Why only one of these possibilities? Life may have been introduced in many other ways. Perhaps from elsewhere. Who knows?
At least science starts slowly providing supported ideas on how that life can have started some 3.500.000.000 years ago. Religion does not allow even to debate their dogma's, as it can not provide any OSE for any of it's wild claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

You live in denial.

---

No I don't. Of course there may be a third and a forth, and a fifth (etc) option. Your problem is that you will not accept that we simply do not know. You insist on an either/or situation without any logical explanation.
Once again I repeat : seeing the total lack of religious OSE, God only seems to exist between your ears.

:>)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Irrelevant. I do not have to prove that. The topic here is The Theory of Evolution, and that theory does not include the thesis of abiogenesis. That this does not suit you in your quest is not my fault.

---

You're funny! Lol!!

Read the first sentence of the OP.

Quote:

---

I understand that your position is the cloudy one : centered on the existence of God, but you can not prove that there is a supra-natural deity that has created everything. Where is the OSE for that? You did not reply to that...

---

Hey, if you refuse to believe the evidence that is your problem not mine.

Quote:

---

It all depend on how you describe life. If that is something that simply can copy itself, yes than it is a valid possibility. Crystals and rare clay models show the possibility of unassisted copying of molecules.

---

Copy themselves? That is a bit of an interpretation isn't it. Are you giving them free will now? Does one of them have the option to say, "hey, I don't want to copy this crystal, I think I'll copy that one?" Of course not. They simply bond in a particular order based on the characteristics of their particular elemental composition.

These again are characteristics that can only be discovered by understanding elemental laws. And laws, as we discussed in the other thread must be given by a law giver.

Look at a construction company. The people constructing buildings say, this one will be like this, this one like that. Who is telling the crystal how to organize itself?

Quote:

---

One step further and you have life. We simply do not know how intricate first life was, but it must have been extremely simple. Only theists claim that out of nothing suddenly a complete human being arose.

---

Which Theists claim that?
Genesis 2 7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Here's what we claim and it is far more logical to believe that God brought man out of pre existing matter than that unintelligent inanimate matter combined itself to produce life and then continued to combine itself to produce more and more complex life.

Fact is, you can't even get to first base with that one. There is no way that inanimate unintelligent matter could have produced the complex systems of even the simplest life forms.

Quote:

---

Abiogenesis : a much more valid possibility than the existence of an immortal always existing deity that "created" everything in 6 days : a totally unrealistic and unsupported mythical claim without even the slightest iota of OSE.

---

There is far more evidence for the idea that God created life and guided evolution than for the idea that nonintelligent matter simply combined and created complex systems.

Quote:

---

What a closedmindedness !

---

You are referring to yourself.

Quote:

---

What a nonsensical claim !
Why only one of these possibilities? Life may have been introduced in many other ways. Perhaps from elsewhere. Who knows?

---

Are you agreeing that life could not have spontaneously occurred from nonintelligent matter?

Or are you simply postponing the creation of life from here to another place in the cosmos which for which you have no evidence either?

[quote]At least science starts slowly providing supported ideas on how that life can have started some 3.500.000.000 years ago.[/quotes]

Supported ideas? Is that code for no evidence, just speculation?

Quote:

---

Religion does not allow even to debate their dogma's, as it can not provide any OSE for any of it's wild claims.

---

Are we changing the topic of this conversation from evolution to Religious dogmas?
Religious already prove the existence of God since they are revealed by Him.

Quote:

---

No I don't. Of course there may be a third and a forth, and a fifth (etc) option.

---

May be? Does that mean you have faith that some exist although you haven't seen them?

Quote:

---

Your problem is that you will not accept that we simply do not know.

---

You sound awfully sure that God doesn't exist for someone who now claims he doesn't know.

Are you now saying that you admit the possibility that God may exist and that He may have brought life about?

Quote:

---

You insist on an either/or situation without any logical explanation.

---

That's the only two possibilities I see. Do you see another? Put it on the table.

Quote:

---

Once again I repeat : seeing the total lack of religious OSE, God only seems to exist between your ears.

---

Now there you go. You seem certain that God doesn't exist. Therefore, you must have seen inanimate unintelligent matter spontaneously generate life.

Otherwise, if you haven't seen that happen, then you have faith in that inanimate unintelligent matter that it can combine and spontaneously generate life.

Sincerely,

De Maria

DeMaria:

Good points: :)

1] Many evolutionists here have stated evolution starts with a single cell - thus admitting they do not know or can not offer a reasonable theory as to how chemicals can come together to form a seemingly "simple" cell.

2] Then the other point you bring about intelligence coming from unintelligence: that is information [ the genetic code ] coming from what??

Then the rebuttals come in the form of diversions, smokescreens, and self refuting statements like:
- that is what you believe
- you can not prove / disprove the existence of God
- intellegence is the by product of evolution
- Christians are anti - science
- 150 years of evolution has been scientifically tested [ yet no one can post links as to the exact mutations and selective factors that demonstrate macro evolution ].
- stick to the op original question

etc. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Then the rebuttals come in the form of diversions, smokescreens, and self refuting statements like:
- that is what you believe
- you can not prove / disprove the existence of God
- intellegence is the by product of evolution
- Christians are anti - science
- 150 years of evolution has been scientifically tested [ yet no one can post links as to the exact mutations and selective factors that demonstrate macro evolution ].
- stick to the op original question

etc.

---

Your rebuttal is:
- an invisible guy in the sky did it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Many evolutionists here have stated evolution starts with a single cell - thus admitting they do not know or can not offer a reasonable theory as to how chemicals can come together to form a seemingly "simple" cell.

---

Not true : they admit they do not know precisely where and how that first life form arose. But there is more and more OSE'd information on self replicating molecules, hinting at the direction science has to look for research WITHOUT having to assume "creating" deities for which there is no OSE at all!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Then the other point you bring about intelligence coming from unintelligence: that is information [ the genetic code ] coming from what ????

---

First of all : first life did not had to have the same genetic coding as our current one. It most has probably evolved into that system. WE DO NOT PRECISELY KNOW !!! But that is no reason to assume "creating" deities for which there is no OSE at all!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Then the rebuttals come in the form of diversions, smokescreens, and self refuting statements ...

---

Where is the OSE for your alternative proposal? Where is OSE for the existence on an always existing supra-natural deity that "created" the universe and life all within 6 days ? At least within science you are allowed to question anything. In religion every basic query is killed in dogmatic refusal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

you can not prove / disprove the existence of God

---

Neither can you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

intellegence is the by product of evolution

---

Does not look so from your spelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Christians are anti - science

---

Who stated that? I did not. There are a lot of intelligent Christians who can think along scientific lines. Creationists either do not seem to understand - or do not want to understand - science and the scientific process of research. They sure misuse science for trying to prove the unprovable. In vain, of course !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

150 years of evolution has been scientifically tested

---

Yes indeed. And proven (OSE) to be the correct line of the development of all life on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

stick to the op original question

---

This is NOT a question board but a discussion board, and my reactions are PRECISELY on topic : they all refer to the posed header that incorrectly states that the theory of evolution proves the existence of God. It does not ! Nothing proves (OSE) the existence of God. God's existence has never been proved (OSE) and I have - from the lack of 2000 years of any evidence into that direction - to assume that that will never been proved. Specially as it is based on dogmatic BELIEF ONLY

:>)

.