Christians! Prove Guided Evolution!

[PandaPirate]

OK, lots of Christians seem to agree with the idea that species adapt, and will even concede some degree of evolution. But they contend that God was the one who created evolution, and that God continues to guide evolution.

 

If that's you, let's hear your evidence for this idea. If that's not you, stick around and make fun of people who think differently.

 

Why do you want to make fun of people who think differently?

 

That's what Christians do. It's not nice.

 

No one will ever have all the answers, so why pretend like we do?

 

Isn't anyone comfortable just saying, "I don't know...but here's what I think..."

 

Why is it always about "who's right and who's wrong?"

[PandaPirate]

I will help get it started: Irreducible Complexity in the genetic code.

 

That's ID...not evolution. Some people, like Francis Collins, don't believe in ID, they believe in hardcore Evolution AND Christianity...which is even weirder.

[PandaPirate]

Nature is the very small and simple on a very large scale. To make a universe you just need lots of hydrogen and maybe a billion years. DNA and RNA are made from just 4 different molecules.

 

From god's point of view, why evolution? He makes what he wants and that's it. Ants have been the same for 200,000,000 years as they are now. Life has been around for maybe 3.6 billion years but modern man for maybe 130,000 years. Why the billions of years delay for the "ultimate creation"?

 

Many men might not be able to see god but any donkey can, as Balaam's donkey proved.

 

Why would "God" poof something into existence if "God" is eternal? I mean...it's not like he's on a time schedule.

[PandaPirate]

Proven lies of Charles Darwin

 

http://hellandjustice.com/human_eye.htm

 

You're kidding, right?

[PandaPirate]

 

I think sometimes we see the simple things within each species, but forget that beyond these simplistic structures are more complicated structures and processes. What about the Ant?

Within an evolutionary framework, the ant describes well why religion is so successful. Animals that cooperate create more power than individuals alone. The priest has more power than a strong man in a primitive society because he has the strength of those who fear the power of the God with whom the priest communicates.

 

I'm sure there were ant colonies that failed because each ant had its own agenda and refused to cow-tow to the "Queen", but these colonies failed.

 

Mankind does have an evolutionary tendency to be religious, or nationalistic.

 

 

I wonder why that is?

[JadedAtheist]

It seems to me that God only resides now in the unexplainable gaps. To bad for him they are slowly disappearing.

[Ouroboros]

I will help get it started: Irreducible Complexity in the genetic code.

 

That's ID...not evolution. Some people, like Francis Collins, don't believe in ID, they believe in hardcore Evolution AND Christianity...which is even weirder.

Actually, ID is the same as "guided evolution." The question to this topic is: "Prove Guided Evolution," which is ID, also called Theistic Evolution.

 

One of the argument ID/Guided Evolution/Theistic Evolution use to "prove" that some intelligent being has guided the mutations is in fact irreducible complexity. However, irreducible complexity has been observed to evolve naturally, and all those arguments about the complexity of the eye, flagellum, etc have also been refuted by the serious evolution scientists.

[Sexton Blake]

I have wondered how, in a convoluted way that, people can square adam not existing and the sacrifice of jesus.

 

if adam didn't exist what did jesus do again

 

Indeed what did Jesus do? Why does an all powerful god need his son to die so he can change his mind?

[epignosis]

OK, lots of Christians seem to agree with the idea that species adapt, and will even concede some degree of evolution. But they contend that God was the one who created evolution, and that God continues to guide evolution.

 

If that's you, let's hear your evidence for this idea. If that's not you, stick around and make fun of people who think differently.

Hi Davka I would like to start off with the question, what are species? There is no defined absolute of what a species is. Scientists can not agree to where you draw the lines.

The other thing is that there is no evidence of evolution, ( the idea of a cell starting somehow and then turned into everything we see today,)

For example there is a great varitey in humans. Tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned. We survive in different ways, eat different foods, etc. But we are all human one 'species'. There are no almost humans, and scienctists can not tells us what we are 'evolving' into so that we are not human anymore.

Scientests have really pulled the wool over the eyes of mankind on this one.

[Phanta]

OK, lots of Christians seem to agree with the idea that species adapt, and will even concede some degree of evolution. But they contend that God was the one who created evolution, and that God continues to guide evolution.

 

If that's you, let's hear your evidence for this idea. If that's not you, stick around and make fun of people who think differently.

Hi Davka I would like to start off with the question, what are species? There is no defined absolute of what a species is. Scientists can not agree to where you draw the lines.

The other thing is that there is no evidence of evolution, ( the idea of a cell starting somehow and then turned into everything we see today,)

For example there is a great varitey in humans. Tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned. We survive in different ways, eat different foods, etc. But we are all human one 'species'. There are no almost humans, and scienctists can not tells us what we are 'evolving' into so that we are not human anymore.

Scientests have really pulled the wool over the eyes of mankind on this one.

 

Davka is no longer with us. (That's a polite way of saying he was banned.)

 

Perhaps someone else will take you up, though.

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

The other thing is that there is no evidence of evolution,

Bzzzt. Wrong.

 

( the idea of a cell starting somehow and then turned into everything we see today,)

You mean abiogenesis?

 

For example there is a great varitey in humans. Tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned. We survive in different ways, eat different foods, etc. But we are all human one 'species'. There are no almost humans, and scienctists can not tells us what we are 'evolving' into so that we are not human anymore.

That kind of statement shows that you don't understand the theory behind evolution...

 

Scientests have really pulled the wool over the eyes of mankind on this one.

They have really not. If you bothered to read some scientific books about it instead of your apologetic literature, you'd know.

[oddbird1963]

OK, lots of Christians seem to agree with the idea that species adapt, and will even concede some degree of evolution. But they contend that God was the one who created evolution, and that God continues to guide evolution.

 

If that's you, let's hear your evidence for this idea. If that's not you, stick around and make fun of people who think differently.

Hi Davka I would like to start off with the question, what are species? There is no defined absolute of what a species is. Scientists can not agree to where you draw the lines.

The other thing is that there is no evidence of evolution, ( the idea of a cell starting somehow and then turned into everything we see today,)

For example there is a great varitey in humans. Tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned. We survive in different ways, eat different foods, etc. But we are all human one 'species'. There are no almost humans, and scienctists can not tells us what we are 'evolving' into so that we are not human anymore.

Scientests have really pulled the wool over the eyes of mankind on this one.

 

 

I highly recommend you pick up/download and then read Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth." Jerry Coyne's work Why Evolution Is True is also a great book to work with.

 

I realize money for books is often hard to come by. Believe me, every book I buy is an excruciating cost/benefit analysis of my tight budget.

 

There are numerous threads on this website where some very knowledgeable folks have given great information on evolution. There are links to articles on websites and you tube videos.

 

I wish you luck as you begin your journey of learning to understand evolution.

[epignosis]

Hi Phanta

OK I noticed it was about 2 weeks old, but thought I might bring it back into activity.

So I guess we will see.

Thanks

[Ouroboros]

OK I noticed it was about 2 weeks old, but thought I might bring it back into activity.

Two weeks old? More like 17 months old.

[epignosis]

The other thing is that there is no evidence of evolution,

Bzzzt. Wrong.

 

( the idea of a cell starting somehow and then turned into everything we see today,)

You mean abiogenesis?

 

For example there is a great varitey in humans. Tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned. We survive in different ways, eat different foods, etc. But we are all human one 'species'. There are no almost humans, and scienctists can not tells us what we are 'evolving' into so that we are not human anymore.

That kind of statement shows that you don't understand the theory behind evolution...

 

Scientests have really pulled the wool over the eyes of mankind on this one.

They have really not. If you bothered to read some scientific books about it instead of your apologetic literature, you'd know.

 

 

Hi Ourb..

 

The first thing is could you please remove the avatar that you put up for me. I don't mind being labeled a believer, but you used pagan symbols in the avatar.

The cross that is used here comes from the Gauls. Theri leader was Constatine, was a worshiper of the Sun and early Chrisitanity took that on as a symbol. But The early Christians would abhour venerating the instrument that was used to put Jesus to death.

So I don't mind being label as a believer but I am not interested in pagan symbols used in my befalf.

Thanks in advance for that.

 

I mentioned that there is no evidence, for evolution. You answered 'Bzzzt.Wrong.' Is that your opinion, or is that that what you believe is true?

 

Abiogenises

 

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis

  AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<a href=\"http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A00/A0021700\" target=\"_blank\">baɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs,</FONT></FONT> ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled</SPAN>[ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA</SPAN> –noun Biology . the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

http://dictionary.re...wse/abiogenesis

[Ouroboros]

Hi Ourb..

 

The first thing is could you please remove the avatar that you put up for me. I don't mind being labeled a believer, but you used pagan symbols in the avatar.

The cross that is used here comes from the Gauls. Theri leader was Constatine, was a worshiper of the Sun and early Chrisitanity took that on as a symbol. But The early Christians would abhour venerating the instrument that was used to put Jesus to death.

So I don't mind being label as a believer but I am not interested in pagan symbols used in my befalf.

Thanks in advance for that.

Alright. Turned it back for ya'.

 

I mentioned that there is no evidence, for evolution. You answered 'Bzzzt.Wrong.' Is that your opinion, or is that that what you believe is true?

I know evolution is true. I used to only believe it was true based on what I heard and some things I read, but after much deeper studies, I am convinced beyond doubt.

 

Abiogenises

I know what abiogenesis is, but do you know what evolution is?

[epignosis]

Hi Ourb..

 

The first thing is could you please remove the avatar that you put up for me. I don't mind being labeled a believer, but you used pagan symbols in the avatar.

The cross that is used here comes from the Gauls. Theri leader was Constatine, was a worshiper of the Sun and early Chrisitanity took that on as a symbol. But The early Christians would abhour venerating the instrument that was used to put Jesus to death.

So I don't mind being label as a believer but I am not interested in pagan symbols used in my befalf.

Thanks in advance for that.

Alright. Turned it back for ya'.

 

I mentioned that there is no evidence, for evolution. You answered 'Bzzzt.Wrong.' Is that your opinion, or is that that what you believe is true?

I know evolution is true. I used to only believe it was true based on what I heard and some things I read, but after much deeper studies, I am convinced beyond doubt.

 

Abiogenises

I know what abiogenesis is, but do you know what evolution is?

 

Thanks for that.

 

Now on evolution, and abiogenesis. I know sciecntists like to say they are separate things , but if you look at it that is not true.

Abiogenesis means you have to believe that life came from non life. But the facts in the world and what man has found, only have one conclustion and that is that life comes from life. There is no other evidence avalible to us to say anything different than that. So sciecntists have to go against the the evidence we have. This is not scienctific. You have to go where the evidence takes you. Scienctists even whent to Mars, and have searched the heavens looking for signals of other life, and have found nothing. To say that space is so big that there has to be other life, that statement is based on emotion, not science. It also assumes that other life abiogenesised out there somewhere also. But scienctists on one hand say the chances of this happening on the earth is an astronomicly large number. But then they say it must have happened elsewhere too. That is a contradiction, and not based on science.

[Ouroboros]

Now on evolution, and abiogenesis. I know sciecntists like to say they are separate things , but if you look at it that is not true.

Ford Motor Company does not need to know how iron is mined or how quantum physics works. They only need to know what is essential to build a car.

 

Evolution means: change. It's about the change of one life form to another life form, not inanimate matter to life form, that is question for biochemistry.

 

But of course the question is interesting for a scientist in evolution too, but evolution as a science does not have to explain big bang or supernovas, it only explains the change of biological life.

 

Abiogenesis means you have to believe that life came from non life. But the facts in the world and what man has found, only have one conclustion and that is that life comes from life.

And that's exactly what evolution studies, how life changes to other forms of life.

 

Evolution doesn't become false because abiogenesis is unexplained. They are two separate questions.

 

Car designs do not become unexplained or unsolvable because the designer doesn't know how iron is formed within a giant star.

 

There is no other evidence avalible to us to say anything different than that. So sciecntists have to go against the the evidence we have.

Wait. Do you have evidence that they are wrong? How can they go "against" evidence if there are no evidence for either or? You're not making sense.

 

This is not scienctific. You have to go where the evidence takes you.

And that's exactly how the theory of evolution came about. People, not only Darwin, saw the evidence and made the most logical conclusions. They didn't invent it or guess it. The evidence points only one way, which is that evolution is true.

 

Scienctists even whent to Mars, and have searched the heavens looking for signals of other life, and have found nothing. To say that space is so big that there has to be other life, that statement is based on emotion, not science.

True. But the lack of evidence is not evidence for lack of something. But you're right that there is no evidence right now for life outside of Earth. But that is not the same as evidence that there is no life outside of Earth.

 

It also assumes that other life abiogenesised out there somewhere also. But scienctists on one hand say the chances of this happening on the earth is an astronomicly large number.

Yes, the chances are astronomical. But do you know where we live? We live on a planet in an astronomical universe. So the chances are 1:1 in an astronomical world.

 

Besides, it's even more astronomical chance that we would share 22 different ERV genes with the chimps. (Astronomical in the power of 22, if we should use your astronomical argument) The only explanation is that we are related. (If you want to talk astronomical chances, that is.)

 

But then they say it must have happened elsewhere too. That is a contradiction, and not based on science.

It's not a contradiction, it's an assumption, that I agree to. It's an assumption (or hope) that it has happened somewhere else too, but it could be true that life is so rare that we are the only ones in the Universe. But to say that they're wrong because they hope is not the same as saying they're wrong because the haven't proven anything.

[epignosis]

Ford Motor Company does not need to know how iron is mined or how quantum physics works. They only need to know what is essential to build a car.

 

Evolution means: change. It's about the change of one life form to another life form, not inanimate matter to life form, that is question for biochemistry.

 

But of course the question is interesting for a scientist in evolution too, but evolution as a science does not have to explain big bang or supernovas, it only explains the change of biological life.

 

It still takes intelligence to mine the ore and process it.

The scientists that believe in the evolution theory, are then blinding themselves to the real answers. For example, the evolution theory demands only one answer to the start to life, and that is life from non life. Because if the start life comes from creation that means evolution as the scientists are now saying is invalid. The variety could have come from preprogrammed DNA. All this we see was planned out. Also ,you would then, have to search out that creator.

So evolution will only accept one answer. The problem for the scientists is they can find the answer they want.

 

 

wait. Do you have evidence that they are wrong? How can they go "against" evidence if there are no evidence for either or? You're not making sense.

The evidence they are wrong is that there is no evidence that life can or did start on it's own. The evidence we have is that life comes from life. To say that life could possibly come from non life, is not scientific, there is no evidence for that.

Also if scientists make life in a test tube, that is creation. Life from life. The only way scientists can prove that life could start on it's own is to find it doing that some place. They have tried the Moon and Mars, and searched other places but so far, no evidence.

 

And that's exactly how the theory of evolution came about. People, not only Darwin, saw the evidence and made the most logical conclusions. They didn't invent it or guess it. The evidence points only one way, which is that evolution is true.

 

Even Darwin knew that his theories were full of big holes. For example, in evolution things would be done in trial and error. ( many mistakes) in the fossil recorded none of these are found. Darwin hoped that in future generations they would find more of these fossils. That has not happened. There should be many more fossils of these mistakes than things that worked. But because in the last 150 years that Darwin hoped these would before actually, rules out Darwin's hope. That is because the more fossils that are found and not the mistakes , is ruling out they will be found at all. But this fact supports creation. You would expect to see completed animals with working limbs, eyes in the correct places, etc. in creation, and they would appear suddenly. This is what the fossil record shows.

 

True. But the lack of evidence is not evidence for lack of something. But you're right that there is no evidence right now for life outside of Earth. But that is not the same as evidence that there is no life outside of Earth.

This is the point ,...............can scientists claim something, they do not have evidence for. They have no evidence that this could be possible. They claim this is what religious people do, but they have done this themselves. So are scientists believing in something based on only faith and no evidence?

[epignosis]

OK, lots of Christians seem to agree with the idea that species adapt, and will even concede some degree of evolution. But they contend that God was the one who created evolution, and that God continues to guide evolution.

 

If that's you, let's hear your evidence for this idea. If that's not you, stick around and make fun of people who think differently.

Hi Davka I would like to start off with the question, what are species? There is no defined absolute of what a species is. Scientists can not agree to where you draw the lines.

The other thing is that there is no evidence of evolution, ( the idea of a cell starting somehow and then turned into everything we see today,)

For example there is a great variety in humans. Tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned. We survive in different ways, eat different foods, etc. But we are all human one 'species'. There are no almost humans, and scientists can not tells us what we are 'evolving' into so that we are not human anymore.

Scientists have really pulled the wool over the eyes of mankind on this one.

 

 

I highly recommend you pick up/download and then read Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth." Jerry Coyne's work Why Evolution Is True is also a great book to work with.

 

I realize money for books is often hard to come by. Believe me, every book I buy is an excruciating cost/benefit analysis of my tight budget.

 

There are numerous threads on this website where some very knowledgeable folks have given great information on evolution. There are links to articles on websites and you tube videos.

 

I wish you luck as you begin your journey of learning to understand evolution.

 

Actually I have read some of his Dawkins books ( online), if you have any questions you like to ask from his or others writings, feel free to do that.

I have read much on evolution, I do know what scientists say concerning this. But it really is just a snow job. What I mean, it is like man made snow there are bits of true flakes in the wind but most of it is false, when it's over and the winds die down you will be lost with nothing to show for it., it will have melted away.

I am prepared to answer question on evolution, if you have some.

[Ouroboros]

It still takes intelligence to mine the ore and process it.

Yes, but there are two different sciences.

 

You don't have to be a miner to be a car designer. You don't go to mining school to become a car designer. Different aspects of reality and knowledge. Different schools of thoughts.

 

Therefore "evolution of living things" is not the same as "biochemistry and origin of life."

 

There is a reason why Darwin called his book "Origin of Species" and not "Origin of Life."

 

If you understand the difference, then you understand why.

 

The scientists that believe in the evolution theory, are then blinding themselves to the real answers. For example, the evolution theory demands only one answer to the start to life, and that is life from non life.

No, evolution theory demands that life exists, and then it explains how it evolves. The word "evolution" comes from "evolving," not from "starting."

 

Because if the start life comes from creation that means evolution as the scientists are now saying is invalid. The variety could have come from preprogrammed DNA. All this we see was planned out. Also ,you would then, have to search out that creator.

So evolution will only accept one answer. The problem for the scientists is they can find the answer they want.

Actually, new DNA is recorded constantly. It has been observed many, many times in both laboratories and in nature. Emerging from mutations and selections. The answer scientists find comes from what they have observed in reality. Your denial of science is unfounded.

 

The evidence they are wrong is that there is no evidence that life can or did start on it's own. The evidence we have is that life comes from life. To say that life could possibly come from non life, is not scientific, there is no evidence for that.

You make no sense.

 

Also if scientists make life in a test tube, that is creation. Life from life. The only way scientists can prove that life could start on it's own is to find it doing that some place. They have tried the Moon and Mars, and searched other places but so far, no evidence.

And what happens if they do one day? Will that convince you that you were wrong all the time?

 

Even Darwin knew that his theories were full of big holes. For example, in evolution things would be done in trial and error. ( many mistakes) in the fossil recorded none of these are found.

Eh. You can't really say if they did or not because you don't know if the individual you found had offspring or not.

 

Evolution is about reproductive success. Someone can survive a life without reproducing, and that is the same as selection against.

 

Darwin hoped that in future generations they would find more of these fossils. That has not happened.

What??? You mean those thousands of fossils found never happened? Were you asleep for 150 years and missed scientific history? There are fossils found all the time. I think there are hundreds, if not thousands, of homonid skeletons and skulls alone. And that doesn't include all fossils from elephants, horses, sharks, fish, ... even flies!

 

There should be many more fossils of these mistakes than things that worked. But because in the last 150 years that Darwin hoped these would before actually, rules out Darwin's hope. That is because the more fossils that are found and not the mistakes , is ruling out they will be found at all.

You don't understand evolution. You're making statements that don't make sense.

 

But this fact supports creation. You would expect to see completed animals with working limbs, eyes in the correct places, etc. in creation, and they would appear suddenly. This is what the fossil record shows.

No, there are many transitional forms. You're not up to date with where science have come the last 50 years.

 

This is the point ,...............can scientists claim something, they do not have evidence for. They have no evidence that this could be possible. They claim this is what religious people do, but they have done this themselves. So are scientists believing in something based on only faith and no evidence?

Eh, only about life on other planets. Life on other planets is not the same thing as proving evolution.

 

Your brain is extremely scrambled and confused. You really need to read some real books about this instead of charging with false attacks.

[Ouroboros]

Actually I have read some of his Dawkins books ( online), if you have any questions you like to ask from his or others writings, feel free to do that.

If you read his books and didn't understand, then the problem must be with you. There's not much to say then.

 

I have read much on evolution,

Then why is 85% of what you're saying completely wrong!? How come you have read Dawkins and so much about evolution and got facts completely backwards?

 

I don't it. Either you're too dumb to understand what you're reading, or you are intentionally lying about what you have done. Because I've read about evolution too, and your charges against it is completely false!

 

I do know what scientists say concerning this. But it really is just a snow job.

Then you're too dumb, too gullible to fall for apologist literature, or lying to us. I know what I know about evolution, and you present falsehoods.

 

What I mean, it is like man made snow there are bits of true flakes in the wind but most of it is false, when it's over and the winds die down you will be lost with nothing to show for it., it will have melted away.

I am prepared to answer question on evolution, if you have some.

Sure.

 

Explain what kind of forces would change the state of a Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (in effect breaking it)? (It's the law about genetic distribution: p^2+2pq+q^2=1) So let's hear it. What kind of forces would alter/break the equilibrium?

 

And when you have given me a satisfying answer to that question, then I will go into markers and satellite genes. And many, many other questions you will have to answer. I will love to hear your explanation to the laryngeal nerve and comparison of human eyes with octopus eyes. But please, start with the HWE question above.

[epignosis]

No, evolution theory demands that life exists, and then it explains how it evolves. The word "evolution" comes from "evolving," not from "starting."

Yes I know why scientists like to separate it, evolution can't explain the start to life. So what has happened is that, they will continue on in evolution in hopes that in the future someone will figure out the start to life. And that it has to be non life to life. If it turns out to be creation then everything is lost. Abiogenesis theory is getting closer to the idea of creation.

 

 

Then why is 85% of what you're saying completely wrong!? How come you have read Dawkins and so much about evolution and got facts completely backwards?

 

The reason is that the scientists have gotten 85% of their theory wrong.

I'm not just saying this to be difficult, but this is true.

Give me an example what you think shows that evolution is true. start after the start of life. Do scientists know what was the first bit of life ( I'm not talking Abiogenesis here) once there was life. what was it, and how did it evolve?

 

Then you're too dumb, too gullible to fall for apologist literature, or lying to us. I know what I know about evolution, and you present falsehoods.

Is this scientific or an opinion?

 

Explain what kind of forces would change the state of a Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (in effect breaking it)? (It's the law about genetic distribution: p^2+2pq+q^2=1) So let's hear it. What kind of forces would alter/break the equilibrium?

The Hardy–Weinberg principle (also known by a variety of names: HWP, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, Hardy–Weinberg Theorem, HWE, or Hardy–Weinberg law) states that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, "overlapping generations", random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these "disturbing influences" are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature. Genetic equilibrium is an ideal state that provides a baseline against which to measure change.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle

 

This is an example of what I mean. There are many ideas floating around, that people take a possible, but are not. They are just Ideas. This is the snow job effect, man made snow, with very little truth.

Evolution is filled with this kind of thing.

Please do not take this personally. All I am saying is that take a real look at what the scientists are saying, and what really is known.

[epignosis]

And what happens if they do one day? Will that convince you that you were wrong all the time?

 

Even if the scientists did created life in a test tube, that only proves creation.

I will give you an example.

We know that the materials are on the earth to make bread. And the scientists could come up with theories and mathematical equations to show that it could happen.

But scientists could make bread in a lab. Does that show me that bread just happens on it's own? NO. But what it does tell me is that the materials are here, but it takes life ( intelligence) to make bread.

This is also ignoring, how the materials to make bread, happened to be here.

 

 

 

Yes, but there are two different sciences.

 

You don't have to be a miner to be a car designer. You don't go to mining school to become a car designer. Different aspects of reality and knowledge. Different schools of thoughts.

 

Therefore "evolution of living things" is not the same as "biochemistry and origin of life."

 

There is a reason why Darwin called his book "Origin of Species" and not "Origin of Life."

 

If you understand the difference, then you understand why.

This shows a short coming of man, he is not able to know everything all at once. Many devote their life to one thing to become an expert in that one thing. I also means that it takes a lot of intelligence to understand the many parts to these questions. Of course the start to life and why we see the variety of life is connected.

Scientists are very good at looking at a musical note ( for example) and telling us what frequency is at and it's harmonics and what scale it's in etc. So what happens is that a symphony is playing , and the scientists grabs some of the notes they hear and studies them , and then tells us all about them. But.... they miss the music. They don't see the greater picture.

[Xerces]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....nberg_principle

 

 

 

Hey look you can copy/paste material from wikipedia, gee you're smart! Dude you remind me of ray comfort, "see here? the banana fits perfectly in my mouth, the right size and shape! therefore proof for a creator!" you know a cock fits in there right perfectly too.