[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. ;)

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

[inthebox]

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. ;)

[Credendovidis]

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...

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??

:>)

.

[michealb]

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.

[inthebox]

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:

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

[Credendovidis]

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"...

:>)

.

[inthebox]

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. :(

[inthebox]

Hey, I found a "beneficial" mutation ;)

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.

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.

[michealb]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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.

:>)

.

[De Maria]

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

[De Maria]

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.

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.

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?

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

[De Maria]

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

[Credendovidis]

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.

:>)

.

[De Maria]

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.

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.

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

Do you believe that unintelligent matter spontaneously generated life.

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.

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

[Credendovidis]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

:>)

.

[De Maria]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

What a closedmindedness !

You are referring to yourself.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

[inthebox]

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:

[NeedKarma]

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

[Credendovidis]

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!!

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!!

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.

you can not prove / disprove the existence of God

Neither can you.

intellegence is the by product of evolution

Does not look so from your spelling.

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 !

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.

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

:>)

.