Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Gillipig]

Here is my evidence of GOD'S EXISTENCE



Coincidence? I think not!!!

[crispybits]

I will see your Jesus toast and raise you:

Pastafarian toast


"Darwinist" toast


Atheist toast (by far the most common toast worldwide, thus proving that most toasters are atheists, and who are we to call millions of toasters wrong!)

[waauw]

Atheist toast (by far the most common toast worldwide, thus proving that most toasters are atheists, and who are we to call millions of toasters wrong!)

hahahahha that last one cracked me up

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

Anyway you state that Darwin's theory doesn't add up because of the fact that animals can't crossbreed because of some enzyme. However if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed?

As far as I understand animal reproduction functions a bit similar to gravity. The further you are from the gravitational field the less influence that field will have on you. So the more animals have mutated away from each other, the higher the probability that they won't be able to mate. The reason for this being that the the probability of their enzymes or membranes having mutated might have mutated too.

The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know".

Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it.

Great questions waauw, Let me tackle them one at a time:
1. if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed? Mutations are usually sterile, or lack physical attributes that a female would select for breeding. The female selects the male, if the male has mutations, she will not accept him. If the mutations are significant, the mother from birth will reject or kill the mutation. But usually the mutants are sterile. So the reality is the mother either kills the newborn mutant or rejects helpless newborn thereby it dies 100% of time. Or the adult mutant is not desired by adult female, so that she won't accept it's advances. Or the mutant is to weak to ward off the alpha male and can't spread it's mutant genes. But let's take your hypothetical scenario to the end: Let's say that the enzyme of a male kind mutates and can't dissolve the female ovum shell. Then that mutant kind dies off w/o offspring. Therefore, ending further mutations. This keeps the kinds the same.

2. The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know". If the best people can say is, "I don't know", then why is Evolution is taught as fact, yet it's a conjecture, a best guess if you will. But here are some counter points to think about: We have mapped the human DNA sequence. Mapping animal DNA sequence is probably years away, not decades. But that doesn't matter. But see if this moves you: By your above statement we are in accord that the DNA structures of life is more vastly complex than thought possible. Life is so complex that life can reproduce and self heal, this is a complexity that still eludes us even as advanced we think we are. So evolution teaches that life spontaneously come into existence in a primordial pool of complex chemicals and amino acids and proteins. And that with enough time, the simple single cell that spontaneously formed became more complex and evolved into the complexities of today. Yet Physics, has laws that can't be violated. One of them is Entropy. This law says that all, everything, no exception, always, all life, all matter, all mass goes from order to disorder. The two are incompatible. And that's one area where evolutionist take a leap of faith and stop being science based and start being faith based.

It's illogical to think that matter and energy, since both have limited life spans and are not eternal, to take the leap of faith that both matter and energy have existed forever in eternity past. It's logical to say that an eternal God, has always been eternal.

Whenever we see even the simplest forms of design, we assume a designer. For example, archeologist see small rocks in a circle in a dig, and they'll say, "that's orderly, therefore, this is possible evidence that man organized this thousands of years ago. But when we get to complexities of life (ie mapping the DNA structures), we don't draw the same conclusion. Why? Because there is a fear of saying there is a God. For if there is a God, then we are accountable by His commandments.

3. Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it? The Bible was written over a period of 3,000 years by 35 different authors. The Bible describes the earth being a sphere in Isaiah 40 in 650BC way before mankind new the earth was a sphere. The Psalms talk about the Sun drags the planets across the galaxies 1,000's of years before mankind figured out that the earth is not the center of our solar system. There 300+ prophecies regarding Jesus alone that were written 500 years before he was born that were fulled. So those writers claimed God inspired them and what they wrote came true, so there is something beyond human ability in the Bible. All the archeology discoveries corroborates what the Bible discussed in history. The Bible discussed hygiene and dietary laws 1000yrs before science discovered germ theory and sanitation concepts. The Bible discusses the hydrological cycle 1000's of years before science discerned how. So the Bible has shown knowledge beyond human abilities to know those things. The Bible even foretold of humans believing that they evolved from of sources of life. Jeremiah 2: “As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the people are disgraced- they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. 27 They say to wood, ‘You are my father,’ and to stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ They have turned their backs to Me and not their faces;
yet when they are in trouble, they say, ‘Come and save us!’ 28 Where then are the gods you made for yourselves?
Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble!".. Written 2,500 years before Darwin.

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve and so did all the other writers in the Bible. What options do we have if the Genesis account of creation is wrong and evolution is correct? Since it was written that Jesus knew all things, then either Jesus didn't know there were errors in the Genesis creation account. Then Jesus couldn't be God in the flesh and Jesus was a fraud a charlatan. If Jesus knew there were errors in the Genesis creation account, but covered them up, then Jesus is not the savior, he is the Devil. The other option is Jesus was correct and the Genesis creation account is His own testimony of what He did with His Father in the beginning.

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

So please explain to me breeds of dogs. And please explain to me how dogs can mate with wolves, jackals and various other very distinct species.

While we may not be able to mate with the various ape species today (not sure anyone has tried for a while), there is certainly a wealth of evidence that we could reproduce successfully with other Hominidae species before they died out.

There are a large amount of examples of evolution that has been observed in living history. Evolution that has created completely new species which cannot mate with the founder species. The easiest example of course are Darwin's finches, but there are many, many others.

For a simplistic diagrammatic representation of how this occurs, see below.



Is it so difficult to for you to imagine that one of these species which has evolved no longer really needs the use of their wings and when a slight mutation causes the wings to become more limb like this makes them better at surviving?

Or lets go from the other direction. While they are in the vast minority, there are plenty of humans that have webbed feet and hands. Before the advent of relatively modern medicine (and lets neglect the fact that they were put to death by various religious institutions for a moment) they would have issues gripping basic tools. Today of course, it is a relatively simple procedure to correct this for the most part. However, what if humans were more reliant on food from the sea? Would not this mutation make them a lot better at surviving?

Humans are even now evolving. Just a few centuries ago, the Vikings were seen as giants by the people that they were raiding, but by today's standards they were really rather short. In 1954 the four minute mile was first achieved. But by today's standards for top athletes, that is actually pretty slow. That is evolution. We are biologically placing more and more emphasis on being tall and fast.

The whole idea that humans were "made" by a supreme being doesn't even slightly take into account observable facts and today, the majority of people that believe in creationism only believe in creationism insofar as that god made the spark that created life and hence ultimately created us. It is a kind of semi-creationism sell out version to be honest.

So please explain to me breeds of dogs. And please explain to me how dogs can mate with wolves, jackals and various other very distinct species.

They are the same kind... The term species is invented by man. As animals adapt to environment and lets say they can't reproduce because of size limitations (ie great dane and maltese) or geography or disease or etc, they are still they same kind.

While we may not be able to mate with the various ape species today (not sure anyone has tried for a while), there is certainly a wealth of evidence that we could reproduce successfully with other Hominidae species before they died out.

This is ironic that you would mention other hominidae, as though they actually existed. When I was growing up, there was a missing link called "Lucy". She was bipedal lower extremity with ape upper body. It took 25 years to discover that the archeologist falsified his evidence. He took a monkey 1 mile away from a human and combined the two claiming he found both in one location. Very sad state, but he isn't alone. Archeorator, the missing link of dinosaurs and birds, was also proven to be falsified... Same with Haekel's embryo drawings that is still in text books today. He was jailed for falsifying his drawings.

Click image to enlarge.

. Your wealth of evidence is not there. This is faith based on what others have told you. You have not researched and found out what was true or falsified.

There is no evolution here. This is called adaptation or specialization. For they are still gnats.

Humans are even now evolving. Just a few centuries ago, the Vikings were seen as giants by the people that they were raiding, but by today's standards they were really rather short. In 1954 the four minute mile was first achieved. But by today's standards for top athletes, that is actually pretty slow. That is evolution. We are biologically placing more and more emphasis on being tall and fast.

. That is not evolution. This again is adaptation or specialization. Even after all this adaptation, we are still the same kind. HUMAN. Jesse Owens the fastest man on earth in 1936 Olympics. If he raced today, he would lose to Usain Bolt by 20 meters. But we are still humans. This is the classic error that most people make, they see settle changes and bypass the natural adaptation to environment and diseases and take a huge leap of faith into evolution of different kinds. No where in history and no where today and no where in the future, will adaptation change the kind.

All dogs can trace their heritage back to one dog, probably the wolf. But it's still a dog. Same with all kinds. No matter how many times a creatures sperm gets on a Pistal of a plant flower, there will never be fertilization. No matter how many times a flowers Stamen brushes up against a passing female animal in heat, there will be no fertilization. Why? because they are different kinds. Same with all birds, fish, creatures. Different kinds never fertilize different kinds. Another proof of no evolution. Sure there are ample examples of adaptation, but the kind will always stay the same. Don't confuse evolution (changing of kinds) with adaptation (changes within kinds, but still the same kind).

[Symmetry]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.
Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

So please explain to me breeds of dogs. And please explain to me how dogs can mate with wolves, jackals and various other very distinct species.

While we may not be able to mate with the various ape species today (not sure anyone has tried for a while), there is certainly a wealth of evidence that we could reproduce successfully with other Hominidae species before they died out.

There are a large amount of examples of evolution that has been observed in living history. Evolution that has created completely new species which cannot mate with the founder species. The easiest example of course are Darwin's finches, but there are many, many others.

For a simplistic diagrammatic representation of how this occurs, see below.



Is it so difficult to for you to imagine that one of these species which has evolved no longer really needs the use of their wings and when a slight mutation causes the wings to become more limb like this makes them better at surviving?

Or lets go from the other direction. While they are in the vast minority, there are plenty of humans that have webbed feet and hands. Before the advent of relatively modern medicine (and lets neglect the fact that they were put to death by various religious institutions for a moment) they would have issues gripping basic tools. Today of course, it is a relatively simple procedure to correct this for the most part. However, what if humans were more reliant on food from the sea? Would not this mutation make them a lot better at surviving?

Humans are even now evolving. Just a few centuries ago, the Vikings were seen as giants by the people that they were raiding, but by today's standards they were really rather short. In 1954 the four minute mile was first achieved. But by today's standards for top athletes, that is actually pretty slow. That is evolution. We are biologically placing more and more emphasis on being tall and fast.

The whole idea that humans were "made" by a supreme being doesn't even slightly take into account observable facts and today, the majority of people that believe in creationism only believe in creationism insofar as that god made the spark that created life and hence ultimately created us. It is a kind of semi-creationism sell out version to be honest.

So please explain to me breeds of dogs. And please explain to me how dogs can mate with wolves, jackals and various other very distinct species.

They are the same kind... The term species is invented by man. As animals adapt to environment and lets say they can't reproduce because of size limitations (ie great dane and maltese) or geography or disease or etc, they are still they same kind.

While we may not be able to mate with the various ape species today (not sure anyone has tried for a while), there is certainly a wealth of evidence that we could reproduce successfully with other Hominidae species before they died out.

This is ironic that you would mention other hominidae, as though they actually existed. When I was growing up, there was a missing link called "Lucy". She was bipedal lower extremity with ape upper body. It took 25 years to discover that the archeologist falsified his evidence. He took a monkey 1 mile away from a human and combined the two claiming he found both in one location. Very sad state, but he isn't alone. Archeorator, the missing link of dinosaurs and birds, was also proven to be falsified... Same with Haekel's embryo drawings that is still in text books today. He was jailed for falsifying his drawings.

Click image to enlarge.

. Your wealth of evidence is not there. This is faith based on what others have told you. You have not researched and found out what was true or falsified.

There is no evolution here. This is called adaptation or specialization. For they are still gnats.

Humans are even now evolving. Just a few centuries ago, the Vikings were seen as giants by the people that they were raiding, but by today's standards they were really rather short. In 1954 the four minute mile was first achieved. But by today's standards for top athletes, that is actually pretty slow. That is evolution. We are biologically placing more and more emphasis on being tall and fast.

. That is not evolution. This again is adaptation or specialization. Even after all this adaptation, we are still the same kind. HUMAN. Jesse Owens the fastest man on earth in 1936 Olympics. If he raced today, he would lose to Usain Bolt by 20 meters. But we are still humans. This is the classic error that most people make, they see settle changes and bypass the natural adaptation to environment and diseases and take a huge leap of faith into evolution of different kinds. No where in history and no where today and no where in the future, will adaptation change the kind.

All dogs can trace their heritage back to one dog, probably the wolf. But it's still a dog. Same with all kinds. No matter how many times a creatures sperm gets on a Pistal of a plant flower, there will never be fertilization. No matter how many times a flowers Stamen brushes up against a passing female animal in heat, there will be no fertilization. Why? because they are different kinds. Same with all birds, fish, creatures. Different kinds never fertilize different kinds. Another proof of no evolution. Sure there are ample examples of adaptation, but the kind will always stay the same. Don't confuse evolution (changing of kinds) with adaptation (changes within kinds, but still the same kind).

So your proof that evolution does not occur rests on a definition of evolution that nobody else accepts? Way to knock down the strawman you set up dude.

[AndyDufresne]

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve and so did all the other writers in the Bible. What options do we have if the Genesis account of creation is wrong and evolution is correct? Since it was written that Jesus knew all things, then either Jesus didn't know there were errors in the Genesis creation account. Then Jesus couldn't be God in the flesh and Jesus was a fraud a charlatan. If Jesus knew there were errors in the Genesis creation account, but covered them up, then Jesus is not the savior, he is the Devil. The other option is Jesus was correct and the Genesis creation account is His own testimony of what He did with His Father in the beginning.

I always feel like there are more options than those you seem to identify for a lot of things. Just sayin'.


--Andy

[chang50]

Jesse Owens the fastest man on earth in 1936 Olympics. If he raced today, he would lose to Usain Bolt by 20 meters. But we are still humans. This is the classic error that most people make, they see settle changes and bypass the natural adaptation to environment and diseases and take a huge leap of faith into evolution of different kinds. No where in history and no where today and no where in the future, will adaptation change the kind.



Simply untrue Owens ran 10.2 in 1936 and Bolt's best time is 9.58,he would not win by 20 metres since Owens was not 20% slower over 100 metres.If you carelessly throw out misinformation like this why should we take anything you say to be reliable?

[BigBallinStalin]

Jesse Owens the fastest man on earth in 1936 Olympics. If he raced today, he would lose to Usain Bolt by 20 meters. But we are still humans. This is the classic error that most people make, they see settle changes and bypass the natural adaptation to environment and diseases and take a huge leap of faith into evolution of different kinds. No where in history and no where today and no where in the future, will adaptation change the kind.



Simply untrue Owens ran 10.2 in 1936 and Bolt's best time is 9.58,he would not win by 20 metres since Owens was not 20% slower over 100 metres.If you carelessly throw out misinformation like this why should we take anything you say to be reliable?

Because it confirms what he wants to take on faith.

[universalchiro]

Jesse Owens the fastest man on earth in 1936 Olympics. If he raced today, he would lose to Usain Bolt by 20 meters. But we are still humans. This is the classic error that most people make, they see settle changes and bypass the natural adaptation to environment and diseases and take a huge leap of faith into evolution of different kinds. No where in history and no where today and no where in the future, will adaptation change the kind.



Simply untrue Owens ran 10.2 in 1936 and Bolt's best time is 9.58,he would not win by 20 metres since Owens was not 20% slower over 100 metres.If you carelessly throw out misinformation like this why should we take anything you say to be reliable?

Honest mistake of 20feet versus 20 meters. My bad , good catch.

[crispybits]

How do we tell which animals are of which "kind" if sometimes those within the same kind cannot interbreed?

[Gillipig]

How do we tell which animals are of which "kind" if sometimes those within the same kind cannot interbreed?

What are you asking?

[AndyDufresne]

How do we tell which animals are of which "kind" if sometimes those within the same kind cannot interbreed?

What are you asking?

He's responding to universalchiro's "kind" idea, back a few pages I think, Gilli.


--Andy

[waauw]

Great questions waauw, Let me tackle them one at a time:
1. if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed? Mutations are usually sterile, or lack physical attributes that a female would select for breeding. The female selects the male, if the male has mutations, she will not accept him. If the mutations are significant, the mother from birth will reject or kill the mutation. But usually the mutants are sterile. So the reality is the mother either kills the newborn mutant or rejects helpless newborn thereby it dies 100% of time. Or the adult mutant is not desired by adult female, so that she won't accept it's advances. Or the mutant is to weak to ward off the alpha male and can't spread it's mutant genes. But let's take your hypothetical scenario to the end: Let's say that the enzyme of a male kind mutates and can't dissolve the female ovum shell. Then that mutant kind dies off w/o offspring. Therefore, ending further mutations. This keeps the kinds the same.

Doesn't this work like gravity? If the resemblance is still close enough it'll oftentimes still work. It's like you said before, the further the distance in mutation, the less chance of reproduction. Hence the small changes due to mutations will spread. However in due time, spread over millenia, mutations will have gone so far that due to regional breeding, the spread of mutations betweed different regions will be different. This will thus result in new races of animals.

2. The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know". If the best people can say is, "I don't know", then why is Evolution is taught as fact, yet it's a conjecture, a best guess if you will. But here are some counter points to think about: We have mapped the human DNA sequence. Mapping animal DNA sequence is probably years away, not decades. But that doesn't matter. But see if this moves you: By your above statement we are in accord that the DNA structures of life is more vastly complex than thought possible. Life is so complex that life can reproduce and self heal, this is a complexity that still eludes us even as advanced we think we are. So evolution teaches that life spontaneously come into existence in a primordial pool of complex chemicals and amino acids and proteins. And that with enough time, the simple single cell that spontaneously formed became more complex and evolved into the complexities of today. Yet Physics, has laws that can't be violated. One of them is Entropy. This law says that all, everything, no exception, always, all life, all matter, all mass goes from order to disorder. The two are incompatible. And that's one area where evolutionist take a leap of faith and stop being science based and start being faith based.

It's illogical to think that matter and energy, since both have limited life spans and are not eternal, to take the leap of faith that both matter and energy have existed forever in eternity past. It's logical to say that an eternal God, has always been eternal.

Whenever we see even the simplest forms of design, we assume a designer. For example, archeologist see small rocks in a circle in a dig, and they'll say, "that's orderly, therefore, this is possible evidence that man organized this thousands of years ago. But when we get to complexities of life (ie mapping the DNA structures), we don't draw the same conclusion. Why? Because there is a fear of saying there is a God. For if there is a God, then we are accountable by His commandments.

My answers:

• You do realise that even though things can go from order to disorder, it also goes the other way around. Chaos theory is one of the examples that states that order will always be created out of disorder. In other words, it's a circular neverending system of changes. And as far as I know this does support evolution as it is all about change.
• Another mistake you made is stating that matter and energy have limited life spans. This is not true. According to the laws of thermodynamics energy(which is the building block of matter) can not be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. It can only be transformed. This seems to be the case as far as we know if we only regard our own universe. However the start of our universe and it's dynamics is one of the sciences that is the least advanced still. This is why the rational thing to say here is we think that... because of these evidences ... . However immediately thinking this proves god is irrational. You think that because we don't know something it must be God? This is the exact same attitude the Catholic church used to have in the middle ages and it didn't get us very far.
• I didn't mean mapping animal DNA sequences as to know what molecule is where. What I meant was it'll still take us decades before we understand what each piece of our DNA does and what the possible consequences are(knowing the pieces doesn't per sé give you insight into the whole)
• Yes archeologists assume designer when they see order, however they further examine it before making it a fact. In fact if they notice that it in fact was just pure coincidence then they will accept it(normally if they are decent archeologists). The problem with your god-theory is that when examining DNA we still haven't found any evidence of it being created by a God.

3. Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it? The Bible was written over a period of 3,000 years by 35 different authors. The Bible describes the earth being a sphere in Isaiah 40 in 650BC way before mankind new the earth was a sphere. The Psalms talk about the Sun drags the planets across the galaxies 1,000's of years before mankind figured out that the earth is not the center of our solar system. There 300+ prophecies regarding Jesus alone that were written 500 years before he was born that were fulled. So those writers claimed God inspired them and what they wrote came true, so there is something beyond human ability in the Bible. All the archeology discoveries corroborates what the Bible discussed in history. The Bible discussed hygiene and dietary laws 1000yrs before science discovered germ theory and sanitation concepts. The Bible discusses the hydrological cycle 1000's of years before science discerned how. So the Bible has shown knowledge beyond human abilities to know those things. The Bible even foretold of humans believing that they evolved from of sources of life. Jeremiah 2: “As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the people are disgraced- they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. 27 They say to wood, ‘You are my father,’ and to stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ They have turned their backs to Me and not their faces;
yet when they are in trouble, they say, ‘Come and save us!’ 28 Where then are the gods you made for yourselves?
Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble!".. Written 2,500 years before Darwin.

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve and so did all the other writers in the Bible. What options do we have if the Genesis account of creation is wrong and evolution is correct? Since it was written that Jesus knew all things, then either Jesus didn't know there were errors in the Genesis creation account. Then Jesus couldn't be God in the flesh and Jesus was a fraud a charlatan. If Jesus knew there were errors in the Genesis creation account, but covered them up, then Jesus is not the savior, he is the Devil. The other option is Jesus was correct and the Genesis creation account is His own testimony of what He did with His Father in the beginning.

The Bible is no conclusive evidence. Many of the core stories of the Bible and by that I mean both old and new testament are derivative from stories from older civilizations and their stories. However it has been proven that changes in the story have occured. The furthest back you can go with the stories is ancient sumeria, the civilization who according to modern history invented writing. And we don't even know whether these stories might have dated back even before writing was invented. So why believe in the Bible when the stories of ancient Sumeria was closer to the original stories.

Another point I'd like to remark is that people often describe what they don't know as a God. In other words, what if aliens did exists and come to earth, changed things here etc. ? In this case it is very plausible that human kind might have worshiped them because of their knowledge and power. People might have even seen it as endless power and knowledge as it just exceeded their own knowledge and power by too far a distance. This same story can be made if we suppose the legend of Atlantis was entirely true. In fact there is a lot of proof that there might have been highly advanced societies even before ancient sumeria.

Now I'm not saying we were created by aliens or atlantians, but there have been many examples in history that people thought certain happenings were divine, when there actually were perfectly logical explanations for them. A good example of this is the first time the spanish got to the americas.

Lastly the fact that the Bible might have some facts written into it, does not prove it is entirely true. If I write a fictional novel about a family living in current times, this story will most probably contain a lot of facts of how life is today(for example existence of a car). This does not however prove that the characters and the story are real. Additionally keep in mind that many of the facts that might be written down in the Bible were also written down by the egyptians, Mayans, Hindu's, etc. These civilizations who predated the writing of the Bible also had vast knowledge of astronomy and several other sciences. Their knowledge was even vaster than what the Bible talks of. It is thus plausible to think the writers of the old testament just picked up a few things from these civilizations.

[crispybits]

Without wanting to distract from waauw and universalchiro's discussion (and that's one advantage of forum style conversations is that we can have 2 or 3 conversations running concurrently) I have a question for the religious people reading.

Are you "searching for God" or have you "found God"? By which I mean are you still trying to come to terms with and understand the nuances and subtleties of the divine mind, or have you got it figured out and do you now know exactly what it is God is saying to us in whatever force of nature or holy book or whatever you attribute to Him?

[universalchiro]

Dr Lawrence,

How do you define separate kinds? By your posts I am forced to conclude that you mean that kinds are groupings of animals that cannot interbreed, say horses, dogs, cats, rodents, etc are all "kinds" of animal. The test (one of them, at least) of whether an animal is of the same kind as another animal is whether or not the sperm of that animal will successfully fertilise the egg of the other animal. If the two animals cannot interbreed then does this mean they are definitely different kinds of animal, or are there additional criteria and the failure of interbreeding is just one indicator amongst others? If there are other factors, please could you explain what they are.

In order to accept your evidence for God, I need to make sure I understand it. I could be operating under a different definition for "kind" than you are.

Dear crispybits,
My definition of "kinds" is not set in stone. Why? I'm not the one who determined what "kinds" are. I'm not the one who determined the boundaries of "kinds". God did. Please remember to broaden the use of "kinds" to include birds, fish, grass, plants, trees, bugs, insects, etc. Genesis 1:11 "Then God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind... Vs20 Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.... Vs 25 God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind..."

For me "kinds" is not limited to if fertilization can or can't occur. For Great Dane female won't have offspring from a tea cup Maltes. Yet both are the same "Kind": Dog. So fertilization is one of many factors. The others would include hormone production of the endocrine and exocrine systems. For the hormone production from the Pituitary gland will cause desire and readiness of the male and female for copulation. Another is appetite: I can't think of an example of an herbivore mating with a carnivore. Another separation of "kind" is habitat. The dividing line of whether a creature lives in water, or desert, or mountains or ice, or tropical region is a distinction of "kind". Also mode of movement: There are no examples of bipedal creature mating with a quadripod or a creature that has no legs. Another example skin: Scales Vs exoskeleton Vs feathers Vs etc.... Another is nurturing process for newborns: Marsupials have a pouch for their young to grow on a hidden teat, Birds have shell that provides nutrition during the embryonic phase, butterflies have a cocoon, mammals produce milk for their young, etc.... Another distinction of Kind is sleeping patterns: for some creatures are nocturnal and would sleep during the day and vice versa. Another distinction of Kind is how they gain nutrition: For plants use photosynthesis, some have 1 stomach, some 2 stomachs.

So a small list (but not limited to) of distinction that help to define "kind" is:
1. Ovum
2. Sperm
3. Capitulate Enzyme for dissolving ovum
4. skin
5. size
6. diet
7. mode of transporation
8. location
9. birthing process
10. rearing process
11. sleep process
12. source of heating body
13. source of gaining energy.
14. This list just keeps going, I'm not God and it may be fully beyond my abilities to know in full beyond the obvious that we can see, feel, observe, test.

Please keep in mind the the classification of species by mankind is created by mankind and though it's a great source of information and helpful, it is unlikely to match up with God's definition of "kind".

I hope this answers your question.

[Symmetry]

Without wanting to distract from waauw and universalchiro's discussion (and that's one advantage of forum style conversations is that we can have 2 or 3 conversations running concurrently) I have a question for the religious people reading.

Are you "searching for God" or have you "found God"? By which I mean are you still trying to come to terms with and understand the nuances and subtleties of the divine mind, or have you got it figured out and do you now know exactly what it is God is saying to us in whatever force of nature or holy book or whatever you attribute to Him?

You seem to have established that the divine mind is male. I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you're male too.

[waauw]

Without wanting to distract from waauw and universalchiro's discussion (and that's one advantage of forum style conversations is that we can have 2 or 3 conversations running concurrently) I have a question for the religious people reading.

Are you "searching for God" or have you "found God"? By which I mean are you still trying to come to terms with and understand the nuances and subtleties of the divine mind, or have you got it figured out and do you now know exactly what it is God is saying to us in whatever force of nature or holy book or whatever you attribute to Him?

You seem to have established that the divine mind is male. I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you're male too.

I'm not sure about english, but in many languages if there is doubt about whether the person is male or female or when you're talking about a group containing both genders, you address the person or group as if he were a male.

[Symmetry]

Without wanting to distract from waauw and universalchiro's discussion (and that's one advantage of forum style conversations is that we can have 2 or 3 conversations running concurrently) I have a question for the religious people reading.

Are you "searching for God" or have you "found God"? By which I mean are you still trying to come to terms with and understand the nuances and subtleties of the divine mind, or have you got it figured out and do you now know exactly what it is God is saying to us in whatever force of nature or holy book or whatever you attribute to Him?

You seem to have established that the divine mind is male. I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you're male too.

I'm not sure about english, but in many languages if there is doubt about whether the person is male or female or when you're talking about a group containing both genders, you address the person or group as if he were a male.

I would say that it's a cultural thing rather than a linguistic rule. Which was kind of my point.

[universalchiro]

Great questions waauw, Let me tackle them one at a time:
1. if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed? Mutations are usually sterile, or lack physical attributes that a female would select for breeding. The female selects the male, if the male has mutations, she will not accept him. If the mutations are significant, the mother from birth will reject or kill the mutation. But usually the mutants are sterile. So the reality is the mother either kills the newborn mutant or rejects helpless newborn thereby it dies 100% of time. Or the adult mutant is not desired by adult female, so that she won't accept it's advances. Or the mutant is to weak to ward off the alpha male and can't spread it's mutant genes. But let's take your hypothetical scenario to the end: Let's say that the enzyme of a male kind mutates and can't dissolve the female ovum shell. Then that mutant kind dies off w/o offspring. Therefore, ending further mutations. This keeps the kinds the same.

Doesn't this work like gravity? If the resemblance is still close enough it'll oftentimes still work. It's like you said before, the further the distance in mutation, the less chance of reproduction. Hence the small changes due to mutations will spread. However in due time, spread over millenia, mutations will have gone so far that due to regional breeding, the spread of mutations betweed different regions will be different. This will thus result in new races of animals.

2. The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know". If the best people can say is, "I don't know", then why is Evolution is taught as fact, yet it's a conjecture, a best guess if you will. But here are some counter points to think about: We have mapped the human DNA sequence. Mapping animal DNA sequence is probably years away, not decades. But that doesn't matter. But see if this moves you: By your above statement we are in accord that the DNA structures of life is more vastly complex than thought possible. Life is so complex that life can reproduce and self heal, this is a complexity that still eludes us even as advanced we think we are. So evolution teaches that life spontaneously come into existence in a primordial pool of complex chemicals and amino acids and proteins. And that with enough time, the simple single cell that spontaneously formed became more complex and evolved into the complexities of today. Yet Physics, has laws that can't be violated. One of them is Entropy. This law says that all, everything, no exception, always, all life, all matter, all mass goes from order to disorder. The two are incompatible. And that's one area where evolutionist take a leap of faith and stop being science based and start being faith based.

It's illogical to think that matter and energy, since both have limited life spans and are not eternal, to take the leap of faith that both matter and energy have existed forever in eternity past. It's logical to say that an eternal God, has always been eternal.

Whenever we see even the simplest forms of design, we assume a designer. For example, archeologist see small rocks in a circle in a dig, and they'll say, "that's orderly, therefore, this is possible evidence that man organized this thousands of years ago. But when we get to complexities of life (ie mapping the DNA structures), we don't draw the same conclusion. Why? Because there is a fear of saying there is a God. For if there is a God, then we are accountable by His commandments.

My answers:

• You do realise that even though things can go from order to disorder, it also goes the other way around. Chaos theory is one of the examples that states that order will always be created out of disorder. In other words, it's a circular neverending system of changes. And as far as I know this does support evolution as it is all about change.
• Another mistake you made is stating that matter and energy have limited life spans. This is not true. According to the laws of thermodynamics energy(which is the building block of matter) can not be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. It can only be transformed. This seems to be the case as far as we know if we only regard our own universe. However the start of our universe and it's dynamics is one of the sciences that is the least advanced still. This is why the rational thing to say here is we think that... because of these evidences ... . However immediately thinking this proves god is irrational. You think that because we don't know something it must be God? This is the exact same attitude the Catholic church used to have in the middle ages and it didn't get us very far.
• I didn't mean mapping animal DNA sequences as to know what molecule is where. What I meant was it'll still take us decades before we understand what each piece of our DNA does and what the possible consequences are(knowing the pieces doesn't per sé give you insight into the whole)
• Yes archeologists assume designer when they see order, however they further examine it before making it a fact. In fact if they notice that it in fact was just pure coincidence then they will accept it(normally if they are decent archeologists). The problem with your god-theory is that when examining DNA we still haven't found any evidence of it being created by a God.

3. Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it? The Bible was written over a period of 3,000 years by 35 different authors. The Bible describes the earth being a sphere in Isaiah 40 in 650BC way before mankind new the earth was a sphere. The Psalms talk about the Sun drags the planets across the galaxies 1,000's of years before mankind figured out that the earth is not the center of our solar system. There 300+ prophecies regarding Jesus alone that were written 500 years before he was born that were fulled. So those writers claimed God inspired them and what they wrote came true, so there is something beyond human ability in the Bible. All the archeology discoveries corroborates what the Bible discussed in history. The Bible discussed hygiene and dietary laws 1000yrs before science discovered germ theory and sanitation concepts. The Bible discusses the hydrological cycle 1000's of years before science discerned how. So the Bible has shown knowledge beyond human abilities to know those things. The Bible even foretold of humans believing that they evolved from of sources of life. Jeremiah 2: “As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the people are disgraced- they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. 27 They say to wood, ‘You are my father,’ and to stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ They have turned their backs to Me and not their faces;
yet when they are in trouble, they say, ‘Come and save us!’ 28 Where then are the gods you made for yourselves?
Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble!".. Written 2,500 years before Darwin.

Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve and so did all the other writers in the Bible. What options do we have if the Genesis account of creation is wrong and evolution is correct? Since it was written that Jesus knew all things, then either Jesus didn't know there were errors in the Genesis creation account. Then Jesus couldn't be God in the flesh and Jesus was a fraud a charlatan. If Jesus knew there were errors in the Genesis creation account, but covered them up, then Jesus is not the savior, he is the Devil. The other option is Jesus was correct and the Genesis creation account is His own testimony of what He did with His Father in the beginning.

The Bible is no conclusive evidence. Many of the core stories of the Bible and by that I mean both old and new testament are derivative from stories from older civilizations and their stories. However it has been proven that changes in the story have occured. The furthest back you can go with the stories is ancient sumeria, the civilization who according to modern history invented writing. And we don't even know whether these stories might have dated back even before writing was invented. So why believe in the Bible when the stories of ancient Sumeria was closer to the original stories.

Another point I'd like to remark is that people often describe what they don't know as a God. In other words, what if aliens did exists and come to earth, changed things here etc. ? In this case it is very plausible that human kind might have worshiped them because of their knowledge and power. People might have even seen it as endless power and knowledge as it just exceeded their own knowledge and power by too far a distance. This same story can be made if we suppose the legend of Atlantis was entirely true. In fact there is a lot of proof that there might have been highly advanced societies even before ancient sumeria.

Now I'm not saying we were created by aliens or atlantians, but there have been many examples in history that people thought certain happenings were divine, when there actually were perfectly logical explanations for them. A good example of this is the first time the spanish got to the americas.

Lastly the fact that the Bible might have some facts written into it, does not prove it is entirely true. If I write a fictional novel about a family living in current times, this story will most probably contain a lot of facts of how life is today(for example existence of a car). This does not however prove that the characters and the story are real. Additionally keep in mind that many of the facts that might be written down in the Bible were also written down by the egyptians, Mayans, Hindu's, etc. These civilizations who predated the writing of the Bible also had vast knowledge of astronomy and several other sciences. Their knowledge was even vaster than what the Bible talks of. It is thus plausible to think the writers of the old testament just picked up a few things from these civilizations.

Waauw wrote, Doesn't this work like gravity? If the resemblance is still close enough it'll oftentimes still work. It's like you said before, the further the distance in mutation, the less chance of reproduction. Hence the small changes due to mutations will spread. However in due time, spread over millenia, mutations will have gone so far that due to regional breeding, the spread of mutations betweed different regions will be different. This will thus result in new races of animals.

This is a great idea that all the changes build on each other and given enough time, we wind up with new kinds, new creatures.
The ability of life on earth to adapt to changes in environment, diet, disease, trauma and famine is remarkable. But however far a kind of life adapts/evolves, it's still the same kind.

Take bacteria for example: Every so often humans have to create new vaccines, new antibiotics. Why? Bacteria build immunity to those drugs. How does this happen? Let's say someone is sick, they take the proper medication and kill off 90% of the bacteria that was causing their sickness. The 10% that remain, had a resistance to the medication and when they go through cellular mitosis and multiply. They will produce offspring that are equally resistant to the antibiotics. But in the end, they are still bacteria. And so too with every adaptation to changes in environment, diet, disease, etc.

No matter how far the adaptation goes, they are still the same kind. Even though they can't mate with their original kind they grew up with. For matting is not the only criteria of kind.

There is no evidence of the above quoted process of long periods of adaptation and settle changes building on prior changes that result in a different kind of creature.

Through selective breeding we can create new looking horses. Tall ones, strong ones, short ones, striped ones, patchy fur, etc. But they are still horses.

This is wear the rubber meets the road. For Evolutionist hang their hat on this hypothesis that given enough time, the changes build up on each other and from this conjecture, we hypothesize that humans came from apes, that came from simpler creatures, that came from simpler creatures, that eventually life came from dirt and watery and complex chemical pool. Which is life came from non-life. Which is spontaneous life. This doesn't occur, has been proven to not be acceptable science since Louis Pasteur.

That is a leap of faith to believe in the untestable, the unknowable. And that is what some people do and call it science. I'm fine if someone wants to believe that they evolved from apes, and dirt is their forefather, just don't call it science and teach it to children with our tax dollars.

[AndyDufresne]

This is wear the rubber meets the road. For Evolutionist hang their hat on this hypothesis that given enough time, the changes build up on each other and from this conjecture, we hypothesize that humans came from apes, that came from simpler creatures, that came from simpler creatures, that eventually life came from dirt and watery and complex chemical pool. Which is life came from non-life. Which is spontaneous life. This doesn't occur, has been proven to not be acceptable science since Louis Pasteur.

That is a leap of faith to believe in the untestable, the unknowable. And that is what some people do and call it science. I'm fine if someone wants to believe that they evolved from apes, and dirt is their forefather, just don't call it science and teach it to children with our tax dollars.

What about mechanisms like insular dwarfism, where species who say at one point migrate to an island, get isolated, and become a wholly new independent species through various adaption and changes?

show: Sci Show

--Andy

[universalchiro]

2. The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know". If the best people can say is, "I don't know", then why is Evolution is taught as fact, yet it's a conjecture, a best guess if you will. But here are some counter points to think about: We have mapped the human DNA sequence. Mapping animal DNA sequence is probably years away, not decades. But that doesn't matter. But see if this moves you: By your above statement we are in accord that the DNA structures of life is more vastly complex than thought possible. Life is so complex that life can reproduce and self heal, this is a complexity that still eludes us even as advanced we think we are. So evolution teaches that life spontaneously come into existence in a primordial pool of complex chemicals and amino acids and proteins. And that with enough time, the simple single cell that spontaneously formed became more complex and evolved into the complexities of today. Yet Physics, has laws that can't be violated. One of them is Entropy. This law says that all, everything, no exception, always, all life, all matter, all mass goes from order to disorder. The two are incompatible. And that's one area where evolutionist take a leap of faith and stop being science based and start being faith based.

It's illogical to think that matter and energy, since both have limited life spans and are not eternal, to take the leap of faith that both matter and energy have existed forever in eternity past. It's logical to say that an eternal God, has always been eternal.

Whenever we see even the simplest forms of design, we assume a designer. For example, archeologist see small rocks in a circle in a dig, and they'll say, "that's orderly, therefore, this is possible evidence that man organized this thousands of years ago. But when we get to complexities of life (ie mapping the DNA structures), we don't draw the same conclusion. Why? Because there is a fear of saying there is a God. For if there is a God, then we are accountable by His commandments.

My (waauw) answers:
[list][*]You do realise that even though things can go from order to disorder, it also goes the other way around. Chaos theory is one of the examples that states that order will always be created out of disorder. In other words, it's a circular neverending system of changes. And as far as I know this does support evolution as it is all about change.

I agree, "Chaos theory" is just a theory. When something goes from disorder to order, there is intelligent design behind the order. I can't clean my room by throwing a bomb in my room. Just applying energy or force to something will not organize or make it orderly, the energy or force must always have a designer or something or someone intelligent directing the energy/force. Chaos THEORY has merit with randomness of situations, but not formation of life, nor shows order from disorder.

[*]Another mistake you made is stating that matter and energy have limited life spans. This is not true. According to the laws of thermodynamics energy(which is the building block of matter) can not be created nor destroyed in an isolated system. It can only be transformed. This seems to be the case as far as we know if we only regard our own universe. However the start of our universe and it's dynamics is one of the sciences that is the least advanced still. This is why the rational thing to say here is we think that... because of these evidences ... . However immediately thinking this proves god is irrational..

I fully know the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. I wasn't referencing a change in the sum. I was referencing the usefulness. For example: a tree burns to ashes. Energy is released into the atmosphere as heat. The sum is of energy and mass is unchanged, but try doing something with that pile of ash and released energy. That's all I was saying.

You think that because we don't know something it must be God? This is the exact same attitude the Catholic church used to have in the middle ages and it didn't get us very far

Well, the Inquisition period was an awful time for Catholic church and this corrupt situation led to the reformation in the 1580's with Martin Luther.

So I'm with you that irrational thinking can be very bad to society.

Also you incorrectly state my thinking. I don't think because we don't know something it must be God... For I base my belief that there is a God on several reasons.
1. The Bible. This series of books combined into one book shows that humans wrote about:
a. scientific things 500-1000 years before mankind knew about things like the earth was a sphere, was balanced rotating on an axis, that the earth revolved around the sun, that the sun's gravity pulled the planets of the solar system, etc
b. Historical things: The cities in the Bible have perfectly paralleled archeology.
c. Prophecies: There are 2,000 prophecies in the Bible that people wrote about events would happen before they happened. This is beyond human abilities.
d. Health: The Bible discusses sanitation and hygiene 1,000 years before germ theory of Louis Pasteur. The Bible talks about the division between ligaments/tendons/muscle before medicine mapped out the body. The Bible tells that life is in the blood 1000's of years before medicine discerns the same.
e. There is no error, no contradiction in God's word. Time tested.

2. Creation: I see the complexities of creation and know there is intelligence behind the order. It's illogical to say Chance caused all given enough time. That is a leap of faith. A non-provable, non-verifiable hypothesis. Which means it's faith based.

3. I see changes that occur in people that place there faith in God.
4. Jesus believed in an accurate and true word of God. And His resurrection from the dead has sealed the deal for me that there is a God and He created all.

[AndyDufresne]

Time tested.

Mother approved?




--Andy

[Symmetry]

Time tested.

Mother approved?




--Andy

Louis Pasteur approved. He's the founder of science, but everything he discovered about the cosmos was totes in the Bible for firsties.

[waauw]

Waauw wrote, Doesn't this work like gravity? If the resemblance is still close enough it'll oftentimes still work. It's like you said before, the further the distance in mutation, the less chance of reproduction. Hence the small changes due to mutations will spread. However in due time, spread over millenia, mutations will have gone so far that due to regional breeding, the spread of mutations betweed different regions will be different. This will thus result in new races of animals.

This is a great idea that all the changes build on each other and given enough time, we wind up with new kinds, new creatures.
The ability of life on earth to adapt to changes in environment, diet, disease, trauma and famine is remarkable. But however far a kind of life adapts/evolves, it's still the same kind.

Take bacteria for example: Every so often humans have to create new vaccines, new antibiotics. Why? Bacteria build immunity to those drugs. How does this happen? Let's say someone is sick, they take the proper medication and kill off 90% of the bacteria that was causing their sickness. The 10% that remain, had a resistance to the medication and when they go through cellular mitosis and multiply. They will produce offspring that are equally resistant to the antibiotics. But in the end, they are still bacteria. And so too with every adaptation to changes in environment, diet, disease, etc.

No matter how far the adaptation goes, they are still the same kind. Even though they can't mate with their original kind they grew up with. For matting is not the only criteria of kind.

There is no evidence of the above quoted process of long periods of adaptation and settle changes building on prior changes that result in a different kind of creature.

Through selective breeding we can create new looking horses. Tall ones, strong ones, short ones, striped ones, patchy fur, etc. But they are still horses.

This is wear the rubber meets the road. For Evolutionist hang their hat on this hypothesis that given enough time, the changes build up on each other and from this conjecture, we hypothesize that humans came from apes, that came from simpler creatures, that came from simpler creatures, that eventually life came from dirt and watery and complex chemical pool. Which is life came from non-life. Which is spontaneous life. This doesn't occur, has been proven to not be acceptable science since Louis Pasteur.

That is a leap of faith to believe in the untestable, the unknowable. And that is what some people do and call it science. I'm fine if someone wants to believe that they evolved from apes, and dirt is their forefather, just don't call it science and teach it to children with our tax dollars.

Well all you have basically said is that evolution is just a theory and I agree with that. However I do think we should teach it to children, and that we should teach creationism. Kids need to learn these big theories and need to be able to choose. We don't want to teach our children to tearn a blind eye to these things. We gotta encourage them to do research about it themselves too.
btw, I also condemn those who teach evolutionism as a fact, even though I believe in it myself.

Now I'm not gonna start re-explaining evolutionism to you here cuz I don't think we're ever gonna get out of this discussion anyway. The only thing I'd like to remark still is that evolutionism doesn't require the spontaneous generation theory. Those are 2 very different theories. The fact is science just does not know how life got created. All we can say at the moment is that it is highly probable life on earth started somewhere else in outer space(panspermia).