What about the DNA evidence?

[Michael]

Don Quixote is back.

I suppose I should have used the example of folks that I've seen deny that current flows along neurons, or that photons have kinetic energy.

 

[Michael]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.[3][4][5][6] The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago,[7][8][9] during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. On November 8, 2013, scientists reported the discovery of what might have been the earliest actual signs of life on Earth by that time - the complete fossils of a microbial mat (associated with sandstone in western Australia) estimated to be 3.48 billion years old.[10][11] Later the date was moved further back by approximately 300,000 years when some graphite in the 3.7-billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks in Greenland has been identified as biogenic.[12]

FYI, even *if* both evolutionary theory *and* abiogenesis theory turn out to be true, in no way does that revelation exclusively support the concept of atheism. As I said, I assume that God is the single most "natural" part of nature, so I personally have no problem at all with life forming from "natural" causes.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suppose I should have used the example of folks that I've seen deny that current flows along neurons, or that photons have kinetic energy.

Will we be getting to the topic anytime soon, or are you going to attempt to derail yet another thread?

 

[USincognito]

Since house cat can breed with Ocelot and produce fertile offspring, then house cat and Ocelot are one species.

Are you talking about an Ocicat? Because that's the result of domestic breeding.
Felid hybrid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[USincognito]

The vaste majority of Physicists believe the Theory Evolution is not science at all, they see as a meta-physical pursuit, and quite a few, realize that the Theory of evolution is unviable, because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Oh my. This is Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter claptrap and will not go over well with an informed audience like you find here.

For example, it has been proven scientifically...

You know who I never see or hear using the phrase "proven scientifically"? Scientists and layman who know anything about science.

 

[bhsmte]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI, even *if* both evolutionary theory *and* abiogenesis theory turn out to be true, in no way does that revelation exclusively support the concept of atheism. As I said, I assume that God is the single most "natural" part of nature, so I personally have no problem at all with life forming from "natural" causes.

Correct. If a God exists and he decided to get the ball rolling, why couldn't he use abiogenesis and evolution? The dude can do whatever he wants, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, real scientists are open to being wrong. They might get the bleep surprised out of them, but they are open to being wrong. Who knows a coin might jump up from a table and land on your finger. That being said the amount of scientists who understand evolution and reject it is much less than 1%, that puts you way out in the fringe. And my 99% estimate came from the feelings that I get from scientists. Very very few scientists that accept evolution reject abiogenesis. In fact insiders are saying that it looks like some scientists feel that they are very very close to an answer.

 

[USincognito]

I provided evidence for my point of view that theory of Evolution can not account for life as we noted.

A. "know it", not "noted".
B. A bunch of dishonest Creationist quote mines, many of which were about abiogenesis instead of evolution, does not constitute evidence.
C. Life as we know it is fully supported by the theory of evolution and honestly cannot be understood without it.

Please provide your own evidence for your own belief in evolution.

One does not need evidence for belief. And you have been provided several pieces of evidence before posting this request. That you have chosen to ignore them does not make them (or the rest of the evidence) go away.

 

[USincognito]

Loudmouth etc. Why are guys you like you are so intent to coming to every Christian Internet discussion group that I find, and trying to push and sell Evolution to Christians?

Here's Loudmouth's join date:
Join Date: 26th August 2003

Here's yours:
Join Date: 19th October 2013

I'd say he's the one who should be asking the questions, not you.

 

[USincognito]

So you intent is to censor Christian and others who believe in an eternal living being who created all that we see.

So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

 

[USincognito]

I've earned 4 college degrees: Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering.

I don't believe you.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't believe you.

I doubt anyone does.

 

[Michael]

Correct. If a God exists and he decided to get the ball rolling, why couldn't he use abiogenesis and evolution? The dude can do whatever he wants, right?

I don't believe that awareness would exist at all were it not for God, and all living things give birth to their young "naturally" AFAIK.

 

[Michael]

FYI, if you're going to entertain the concept of the "natural" formation of microscopic forms of awareness, then it's pretty much impossible to rule out scientific concepts like Boltzmann brains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

FYI, if you're going to entertain the concept of the "natural" formation of microscopic forms of awareness, then it's pretty much impossible to rule out scientific concepts like Boltzmann brains.

You seem to be making the mistake that evolution is a random process.

 

[[serious]]

I've earned 4 college degrees: Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering.

Well I've earned 507 degrees. Unfortunately , they were all from the unaccredited Believer's Ontological Graduate University System school. Which I just made up. 507 is higher that 4 so I win.

 

[Michael]

You seem to be making the mistake that evolution is a random process.

Who said anything about "random"? Boltzmann brain theories are based upon laws of physics.

 

[stevevw]

You know what else is a flap of skin and fur between the forelimb and the hind limb?

So you are saying that the flap on the flying squirrel is linked to the bats wings. Yet scientists say the bat developed longer digits that enabled the stretched out skin to be connected to form a wing. Bats have been found that are fully formed from 60 million years ago. There are still flying squirrels around today. What came first the glider or the wing.

Bats that would have developed longer digits would have found it difficult to climb and walk before they could use them for any flying. Trying to fly would have resulted in crashes. This useless feature would have been a hindrance and the species would have rejected this or not survived. If the features came suddenly which would mean complicated genes being produced from a mutation in a short time it would almost verge on being miraculous. If that is the case it leans more towards creation than anything else. Evolutionists like to paint this picture but cannot explain how these detailed and complex features like wings could pop out of a creature without being rejected or almost so suddenly that it is hard to believe.

 

[USincognito]

I was referring the most prestigious Physicists, not the ones teaching in High School or most colleges whom would lose their jobs if they speak against the Theory of Evolution, by the iron hand of the High Priest Scientists of Evolution who worship Secular Humanism, and these extreme Secularists hold power in academia, and whom would take any tenure whom dare to or not give them tenure, if they do not bow to their God, Evolution., more so today than back then.

So ones that exist only in your imagination then?

I have a close friend whom is an excellent Biologists. He made a new discovery of evidence in the Biology of an animal that clearly contradicts The Theory of Evolution. He was not allowed by his higher ups to publish that fact in his paper.

No you don't. This story is made up.

Actually, I'll tell you what. I will retract this fully if you merely tell us what animal is the subject of your friends paper.

Another very top physicist wrote a published paper telling young scientists to stop kissing the ass of evolution in their science Papers, Papers that had nothing to do with evolution. Instead of doing real science, young scientists know if they are thought to doubt the Theory of Evolution, they will never get their papers published, and they most likely be Ostracized in the field of science.

Then how did this "top physicist" ever get his paper published?

Now, I can not help seeing that every Christian or religious website has permanent people like you who are pro-evolution, who come and badger Christians, Jews, Muslims, whom all believe in Creation, and badger them like you do, and pooh-pooh their views and arguments. Is this not true.

Maybe you should spend more time familiarizing yourself with CF and less complaining about people who have been here for a year or ten when you have been here a month.
http://www.christianforums.com/f143/
There's even a Creationists only subforum there.

Who asked you to do this? Be honest or lose credibility.

People who ask stuff like this read like paranoid conspiracy theorists. I'd avoid doing so in the future if one wishes (since you're a new and unknown entity) to build credibility.

BTW, I gave you a big piece of evidence why Evolution. For a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids has a 1 out of 10^65 probability of being capable of folding. If it does not fold, it is worthless for living creatures.

This sounds like Hoyle's 747/Junkyard numbers. The thing is, Douglas Axe is throwing together numbers as if all 100 happen to form together at once, as if there were no building and selective processes.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't believe that awareness would exist at all were it not for God, and all living things give birth to their young "naturally" AFAIK.

Ok, your opinion is noted.