Science has proven the creator exists (see my previous message if it still exists). Evolution is a 19th century science that has seen its day.
And it does not stop with science. So knowing he exists gives me faith, the assured expectation, that his promises will be kept.
How convenient!
While those who study cognition know that the mind is what the brain does, and despite the fact that we can now ‘see’ thoughts via brain scans, you’ve decided to invent a “soul” and an “immaterial” mind that is imaginary (“non-empirical” is theist code for “I’m trying to sell you bullshit now, please buy it”), and because you can invent an imaginary Magic Mind, why, then your imaginary Magic Mind must prove God.
How very fortunate.
No, science hasn’t proven that your god or any other exists. And evolution is one of the most firmly demonstrated and central scientific facts there is; you would be more likely to successfully disprove gravity at this point.
Yep.
Rain implies clouds. If there are clouds, that does not mean that it must be raining.
Bullshit. You used a God of the Gaps fallacy, claimed that because we exist that proves (your specific favorite) God, and then claimed that was “science”. You’re rather obviously trying to co-opt the clout that science has earned because it works, while faith does not.
So, can you cite one single peer reviewed journal article that “proves” a “creator”?
No?
Funny, that.
Evolution is a fact as rock-solid as gravity.
Sorry you have such a problem with reality.
Yes, elves and pixies created humanity out of magic beans. Good theory there, very rigorous.
Prayer not only does not help sick people, it can actually harm them. Wonderful God you’ve got there. Real shiny. What other promises, other than the efficacy of prayer, should I show you aren’t true?
I don’t believe prayer help sick people. You have me mixed up with someone else.
Life proves there is a creator. For life to come from non-life is impossible.
Scientist use the think that cells were formed when amino acids in some pond assembled themselves into a cell. Now they know better.
When we look at how proteins are constructed, the chances of getting an average viable protein 150 amino acids long by chance is next to impossible. The order of amino acids has to be correct so the chain can be rolled up into a 3 dimensional protein. If the amino acids are out of order then connections can not be made during roll up and the amino chain will be is destroyed.
But if by chance we got very lucky, you only have one protein. The simplest cell needs over 600 proteins. And the cell needs to be able to replicate itself before we can even talk about evolution.
The cell creates all the proteins it needs from instructions buried in the DNA. To manufacture these proteins the cell uses molecular machines which are themselves made from proteins (chicken and egg problem). There are molecular machines that unrival the DNA at certain points so other molecular machine can read it producing RNA. Then another molecular machine transports the RNA to the outside of the nucleus to another molecular machine that generates the amino acid chain from the RNA. Then another molecular machine transports it to a molecular machine that rolls it up into a 3 dimensional protein and then another molecular machine transports the protein to where it is needed.
The problem should become clear. Where did these molecular machines come from when the chances of amino acids assembling themselves into proteins are almost non existent. And how do these machines know how to work together to keep the cell alive. Without DNA the cell can not manufacture proteins and without proteins the DNA is useless.
Where did the DNA come from? The DNA is an extremely large digital program that is compacted into the nucleus of a cell. This does not even come close to what man has accomplished so far. If you found a large digital program on earth that was so miniaturized as this, wouldn’t you think we are not alone?
What’s the Minimum DNA Amount for Life?
A team of researchers wanted to know. They did this by tinkering with a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the simplest known organism. Its genetic code is about 580,000 letters long and spells out 480 protein producing genes plus 37 kinds of RNA. After the researchers knocked out various protein coding genes they got the estimated genes down to 265 to 350 that are essential for life under laboratory conditions - an extremely favorable environment that would not be found on the early earth.
What is the size of a gene? Bacteria has 1,000 base pairs for each gene. What are the chances of getting 480 genes each 1,000 base pairs long (actually more than this 580,000 / 480) in the correct order?
What are the chances of getting these genes in a structure along with the various molecular machines to get at the genes?
DNA is an extremely information rich system that can not be explained by chance.
The living cell is irreducibly complex on every level. All the parts have to be in place to have a replicating cell. It can not be build little by little until Mount Improbable is reached.
SETI is looking for intelligent life in the universe by searching for signals that are polarized or with coded information. By this criterion they infer intelligence. Complexity and high improbability.
We can infer an intelligent designer of life by the extreme complexity and impossibility.
There is no doubt God exists.
You keep repeating this as a mantra. Do you have any decent evidence for this assertion?
And, yes, this is still a God of the Gaps argument.
I repeat: when come back, bring better argument.
Its much better explanation than evolution of the gaps argument.
That’s one of your God’s promises. Funny that you don’t believe in it once it’s shown not to work. Convenient.
Already refuted this with citations. You are now simply, willfully, repeating non-true claims. In point of fact, you regurgitated your exact claims, claims that were already proven to be false. It’s rather obvious that you’re reading from a script here.
- No, they didn’t.
- Even if you were right (you’re not), then all that would prove is that science is auto-correcting and actually cares about the truth. How many times has your religion significantly modified its Holy Book?
Fuck that noise, you are now deliberately ignoring my citations and simply repeating your errors over and over and over again.
If only I provided citations on this point!
Oh, wait, I did.
The evolution of the gaps argument has nothing to do with origin of life. It just ass/u/mes life came from non life and goes from there.
No, it isn’t. “An undefineable, unfalsifiable, untestable, non-empirical (code for “doesn’t actually exist”) entity did it and we don’t know how” is not exactly a good, let alone better, explanation. Especially since evolution is an absolute fact undeniable by any informed, honest person. Oh yeah, and evolution actually explains the development of life.
“A wizard did it!”?
… not so much.
you clearly don’t understand what evolution is, nor what the ‘god of the gaps’ is as a fallacy.
The evolution of the gaps argument has nothing to do with origin of life. It just ass/u/mes life came from non life and goes from there.
[/QUOTE]
You just quoted yourself, and responded to yourself. :rolleyes:
I understand that no amount of scientific proof can sway some people. I suggest you look it up. See what goes on inside a cell. Darwin had no clue in his day. Today no is without excuse.
I remember when they found DNA that did not manufacture proteins they called it junk DNA. Evolutionist said it is what they expected to find, junk DNA, left overs. Without ever researching it. EVOLUTION OF THE GAPS!!!
Later scientist research and found it wasn’t junk at all. I works like the operating system in a computer, regulating genes.
Seldom has a more ironic statement been made.
Why don’t you do so? It’s quite clear that you don’t understand biology or evolution at all.
And again; like it or not, evolution is as utterly confirmed as anything can be. There is no scientific dispute on evolution existing, only in the details of how it works.
Changes within animals of the same kind. This detail works. Everything outside this doesn’t work. There are limits.
Evolution is still a theory. If they had proof there would be no controversy. You must have blind faith to believe it.
Abiogenesis =/= evolution =/= cosmogenesis, etc…
Evolution describes how allelic frequencies change. How alleles began is irrelevant.
- Quaint. When you display a basic level of comprehension about evolution, you can try to lecture me about it.
- I’ve taught biology on the college level.