Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

No, that is all YOURS! I gave you an example of a MAMMAL that still had remnants of its evolutionary history. According to you a mammal is a mammal and has nothing reptilian about it. It is a crossover species, mostly mammal part reptile.

You are showing your ignorance on the theory you hold dear. It is not a transitional animal. Look this is from your side. This is Daws 's favorite site because he does not know enough to debate the issue and this is the site he runs to when he don't know what to say which is often.


Creationism and the Platypus

From your link:

In summary, the features of the living platypus, and the evidence available from its scanty fossil record, are both consistent with the idea that it has evolved from primitive mammals which still had many reptilian characteristics.

It's not my source it is a pro evolutionary site they just showed you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Probably the same reason we keep having to talk about religion.

Well--I can see how religion and theology comes into the discussion, but why is there focus on science?

Science deals with the physical world. We already have a pretty good ideal what that is.


I am still trying to figure out what this spiritual world is. So, far it is not the physical world and it is not conceptual world--so what is it.

The believers were losing the "spiritual world" argument which is why they switched to attacking science. In essence there is no "spiritual world" at all. What we have are gaps in our scientific knowledge and mankind's ability to enter a "spiritual" state of mind. This mental state is really just a form of meditation. Given the complete and utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any deity the believers are attempting to claim that this state of mind is "evidence" of this mythical "spiritual world". So you were right on the money when you referred to it as a "conceptual world". It is just another figment of the imagination for those who need a "spiritual crutch" to help them limp through their lives.

We don't attack science and you're dreaming.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?

I hold a degree in Molecular Biology will that suffice ? May I ask what you and your buddies background in Science are ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your lack of basic comprehension skills is readily apparent when you can't differentiate between posters. The scientific EVIDENCE for different genera is that they already exist by the millions. Only a close minded religion obsessed ignoramus refuses to accept that these have occurred because of evolutionary ADAPTION to changing environments. Your pathetic whine that you cannot observe in a laboratory something that took millions of years to happen is only evidence that you have a serious intellect shortcoming. There is ample fossil and DNA evidence for the origins of our present variety of genera but you flatly refuse to accept this evidence because or your own self imposed religious limitations.

Let's save the personal insults and digs and focus on the debate, shall we?

And yet you never fail to ignore your own advice.

Why do your persist in IGNORING the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record.

ADAPTATION is not being questioned. I fully understand that things adapt, there is no argument about this. You're supposed to be explaining billions and billions of very distinct and different life forms, which supposedly (according to you) came from a single cell. You argue that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes to occur within a species, and you point to examples of species who share attributes with species of another genus, but what you are FAILING to provide evidence for, is CROSS-GENUS speciation.

Once again...the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record exists.

Darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of FAITH.

Your failure to comprehend the scientific evidence provided by DNA and the fossil record does not negate Darwin or all of the other FACTS.

Can you be more specific ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

let's save the personal insults and digs and focus on the debate, shall we?

and yet you never fail to ignore your own advice.

Why do your persist in ignoring the scientific evidence provided by dna and the fossil record.

Once again...the scientific evidence provided by dna and the fossil record exists.

darwin's theories don't explain this, and neither have you. It's pure speculation, based on your refusal to even consider any other possibility, besides the one you have adopted as a matter of faith.

your failure to comprehend the scientific evidence provided by dna and the fossil record does not negate darwin or all of the other facts.

dna and fossil records do not support your theory, neither does darwin. Things do adapt, species within a genus do evolve and new species do emerge. What doesn't happen, is cross-genus speciation. Some species do share attributes with other species from other genera, but this does not prove cross-genus speciation. We can't replicate this process in a lab environment where we control all the variables, but you claim this happened naturally. Not only do you claim this happened, but it had to happen quite often and rapidly, in order to produce billions of various genera in just a few billion years, and you admit that it takes "generations" for the slightest changes. Nothing in your theory is comporting with science or logic, it is mere speculation and assumption.

There has never been any evidence to support cross-genus speciation.

a+

 

[daws101]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

Exactly what scientific "credentials" does the "boss" have to make these sweeping denunciations of peer reviewed scientific facts? He has already proven that he doesn't understand Darwin, Evolution, Logic and the English language. So does he have a "doctorate in denialism"?

he's also a proclaimer the very thing he accuses other of being...
also notice he never presents reference material.

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/LEGQu3cm3CE]How Evolution Works 7: Speciation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.



You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.

 

[daws101]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.

hallelujah brother! you seen de light...now can you contribute....

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.

Similarities does not prove ancestry.

 

[edthecynic]

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.

Similarities does not prove ancestry.

Exactly, similarities show a complete lack of any relationship whatsoever.

 

[Boss]

Exactly, similarities show a complete lack of any relationship whatsoever.

If similarities indicate relationship you must be at least 3/4 jackass.

 

[Boss]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.

I didn't say anything about god speaking, and I never said anything was impossible. Again, you are trying to cram your illogical theory down my throat by sheer ridicule and petulance.

You have not shown or demonstrated cross-genus speciation. You have done nothing but speculate and demand your opinion be accepted. I've repeatedly shot down everything you've presented, and you can't refute my points, so now you and your jackwagon god-hating buddies are going to chortle back and forth like pubescent school girls at a slumber party.

I have known dumb-as-brick religious zealots who were more open minded than you. You've totally abandoned science so you can practice a faith-based disbelief in god, and bash Christians. That's what this is ALL about, but you'll never admit it.

 

[Hollie]

I did read what you posted. I have said, there is no argument that animals within a specific genus, do change and evolve into distinctly different species within their genus. You have presented legitimate and valid evidence for this, and I have never refuted it. What you haven't shown, is evidence of CROSS-GENUS speciation. You're claiming it, you're speculating this might have happened, but you aren't PROVING this happened, and you can't. We also can't replicate this in a lab, nor do we see it happening anymore, if it ever happened at all. That is not saying it's not possible, but science deals with what is provable through testability, falsifiable evidence, observation and evaluation. You have NONE of that. What you have is a speculative faith-based theory with no basis of physical support, no different than the "believers" you hate and loathe so much.



You have not provided any evidence to support this conjecture. I see you claiming it, I see you believing it with all your heart and soul. I see you ridiculing anyone who challenges it. What I don't see, is any evidence to support your theory. Comprehension abilities are not the problem here, I am fully capable of comprehending anything you present. The problem is, you haven't presented anything to prove your theory. You pointed to a platypus and tried to claim it's "in between" a mammal and reptile, but it's clearly a mammal. It has the reproductive system of a platypus, which is a mammal, and not a reptile. Obviously, some mammals are capable of reproducing the same way as some reptiles, this doesn't mean they are "part reptile" or a "crossover" anything, they are still mammals.

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

I'm afraid your knowledge of the biological sciences derives largely from such hacks as the Institute for Creation Research and similar charlatans. Your talking points are almost precisely paraphrased from the likes of Henry Morris.

Enlighten yourself.

CB910: New species

 

[Youwerecreated]

God has spoken, that settles it.

There can be no crossovers because no matter how many characteristics are shared, shared characteristics show there is no relationship that is shared.

Similarities does not prove ancestry.

Exactly, similarities show a complete lack of any relationship whatsoever.

Mr. Circular reasoning because you lack evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

I'm afraid your knowledge of the biological sciences derives largely from such hacks as the Institute for Creation Research and similar charlatans. Your talking points are almost precisely paraphrased from the likes of Henry Morris.

Enlighten yourself.

CB910: New species

Oh that's right let's extrapolate from animals adapting and they do it to a point a new distinct genus was produced.

I wondered how long before hollie or daws would run off to her now favorite site lol.

Do you not understand new breeds or species whichever term you prefer are produced within a group or family but they never result lets say canines through adapting will never produce a non-canine got it. That is what the claim is with evolutionists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.

 

[Boss]

Not only did I give you a crossover in the Platypus, it has characteristics of both mammals and reptiles, I also said there were crossovers higher up the evolutionary chain between Kingdoms. For example the Euglena. It can be classified as a plant or an animal. The euglena is different than other protozoans because it has chlorophyll in it, the substance that plants contain to make their own food. The euglena is then able to make its own food like a plant when it is in the sunlight. When it is in darkness, however, it can get food like an animal. It takes in tiny plants and animals much like the ameba and paramecium. The euglena has a bright red eyespot which is sensitive to light and helps the euglena find light.

Euglena

Euglena is a genus of single-celled, free living microorganisms that show both plant- and animal-like characteristics.
Euglena are able to use photosynthesis and heterotrophic oxidative assimilation as interchangeable and apparently equivalent sources of carbon and energy.
How to classify Euglena has been a long-standing problem; the genus has been claimed as photosynthetic protozoa by zoologists and as algae by botanists.

Euglena is a Protozoa. It is an animal with plant-like characteristics. Again, you have given me an example of a genus which shares characteristic with another genus, but this does not prove they were ever something different. Because you incorrectly keep referring to such anomalies as "crossovers" doesn't PROVE your case. SORRY!

I'm afraid your knowledge of the biological sciences derives largely from such hacks as the Institute for Creation Research and similar charlatans. Your talking points are almost precisely paraphrased from the likes of Henry Morris.

Enlighten yourself.

CB910: New species

Wow, TalkOrigins.org.... I wonder what kind of organization that is? I wonder what kind of propaganda they are committed to spewing? Certainly, with a name like that, they are presenting a fair and objective case!

New species emerge all the time. They do not cross genera. Not only does it not happen in nature, we can't make it happen in a lab, working with sophisticated instruments and DNA.

You can have all the Darwin evolution you please, if you can't explain cross-genus speciation, you can't get to origin. The problem is, if you ever DO explain cross-genus speciation, you then have to explain why it totally stopped happening and we can't even replicate the process in a controlled lab environment.

I am not familiar with Institute for Creation Research or Henry Morris, I haven't posted a link to their organization or copied and pasted from their website. All I did, was make a perfectly rational and valid point that you can't refute. Given the rationality and relative simpleness of the point, it doesn't surprise me that others may have also raised it. What blows me away, is all you people who profess an almost religious belief in science, totally abandoning science here.

 

[newpolitics]

I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.

Well, you nor anyone else can have one. I can make can make one up for you, write a story about it, and put it in a book, and tell people about it and have them believe it, but that doesn't mean its true.

You've just confirmed that yours is an argument from ignorance, and that you can't stand an absence of explanation. To fill this epistemic vacuum, you throw in something, anything, to suit your intuitional needs. It is human weakness. We simply don't know. Deal with it.

 

[Boss]

I still want an explanation as how life began from non-life. This would Pretty much save us a lot of wasted time once we figure out life is a product of design.

Darwin himself said, if you can show a system to be irreducibly complex, it could not have been the result of evolution. The human eye can not work without the sum of all parts. Take any one part of the eye away, and the system doesn't function. Darwin says there is no way this could have evolved, because evolution doesn't predict the future. Evolution has no way of knowing what parts of an eye need to evolve into existence for the eye to work. Evolutionists once suspected the human eye was an evolved stage of simple photometric cells, attached to an optic nerve, but upon further review, science finds that these systems are completely different from a human eye. The way the two different system work, is so dissimilar, it rules out any possibility the human eye evolved from photometric cells.

Now this is real science stuff, things we know as intelligent people observing science. But how do the "god-haters" handle this scientific revelation? They mock and ridicule it. They pretend that science says something totally different and those of us who raise this point are nut cases who reject science. Unfortunately, they have that part backwards.