Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[numan]

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.

What you are writing is really very silly.

Chordates ---> Vertebrates

Vertebrates ---> fish

Fish ---> amphibians

Amphibians ---> reptiles

Reptiles ---> mammals and dinosaurs

Dinosaurs ---> birds

and, probably,

Mammals ---> cybernetic organisms
.

 

[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.

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.

Human spiritual connection has existed in humans for all of our existence. This is hardly something that is "made up."

 

[Boss]

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.

What you are writing is really very silly.

Chordates ---> Vertebrates

Vertebrates ---> fish

Fish ---> amphibians

Amphibians ---> reptiles

Reptiles ---> mammals and dinosaurs

Dinosaurs ---> birds

and, probably,

Mammals ---> cybernetic organisms
.

Sorry but "---->" is not scientific proof of anything other than your mastery of the keyboard.

 

[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.

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.

This is where logic comes into play was that not a point of argument you were making earlier ?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

What living thing is God?

 

[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.

What living thing is God?

Not sure what you're asking. God is a spirit but he can materialize.

 

[BreezeWood]

the Garden is the Physical Presence and Proof of its Creator.

Mammals ---> cybernetic organisms

the corruption of the Bible is surly matched by the disbelievers urbanization of nature.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

What living thing is God?

Not sure what you're asking. God is a spirit but he can materialize.

You just shot down Bossy.

God is not a living thing therefore life came from non-life if life came from God.

 

[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.

This is where logic comes into play was that not a point of argument you were making earlier ?

Which argument? I made a bunch a logical refutations, perhaps a few arguments. Please be more specific.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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"?

There is not ANY peer reviewed scientific facts to support your concept of cross-genus speciation. NONE! NADDA! You can lie and claim there is, you can believe there is, but you can't show it to us because it doesn't exist. I think I understand Darwin and Evolution better than you, what you are claiming is not something espoused at all by Darwin. It's just flat out illogical bullshit, and you are trying to force it down our throats by intimidation and ridicule. Sorry, but that's not going to fly! EVER!

Your profound ignorance and failure to comprehend are your problem and in no way refute the peer reviewed scientific FACTS in the fossil record and the DNA evidence. You screech and whine that there is no such evidence. Take a look at the following link;

Which embryo is human?

Adult fish, chickens, dogs, and lizards don't look much like humans. So why do these embryos look so much alike? The basic design of all these animals is more similar than you might think. Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same. That's why scientist can learn about human development by studying other organisms--including zebrafish.

DNA and the Developing Embryo

Inside almost every cell in every living organism is a long, twisted, ladder-like molecule known as DNA. The information contained in the DNA molecule provides a "blueprint," or a set of codes, for building other molecules used by the cell.

As the organism grows, different parts of the DNA molecule, called genes, are decoded and read by the cells. Each gene contains instructions for building a particular molecule that's needed by the growing body.

As the organism develops, different genes in different cells may be read. The ultimate fate of any one cell--whether it becomes a skin cell, a nerve cell, a kidney cell, or a bone cell--depends upon which genes are read. If any of the genes are missing, if they are misread, read out of sequence, or altered in any way, the cell or organism may dramatically change.

The timing of this process depends on the embryo's stage of development and the location of the cell. Developing eye cells, for instance, use different combinations of genes than do brain cells or skin cells. The embryos here are all in the same stage of development. Their physical similarities and differences correspond to variations in their genes.

All of those embryos look similar because the DNA to generate a spine is common across all genera that have one. So the differences between a reptile and a human happens AFTER the genetic development of the spine (and all of the other common features like eyes, nerves, skin, organs, etc). This is FACTUAL reproducible scientific evidence. You have already conceded that minor genetic alterations have occurred over the last 2 centuries. The common early development in the embryo is evidence that over millions of years changes in the genetic sequence result in the variety of genera that are currently alive today.

Your kneejerk reaction will be that a fish embryo can't become a chicken. The scientific reality is that if you take the fish genes and change them to those of a chicken in a laboratory it will become a chicken. While this has not yet been done but it is only a matter of time since genetic modification is already practical. All it takes is to know how many genetic steps in the evolutionary process occurred for a fish to become a chicken then they can be replicated in a laboratory.

The only "illogical bullshit" is your endless denial of these scientific facts. You are lying when you alleged that you can "comprehend" this process because it is patently obvious that you have never taken the time to actually read about it and understand how it works. The change from one genus to another happens in very small incremental steps. Being an ignoramus you expect it to happen in just one huge change. That is NOT how evolution works. This is how we know that you are incapable of "comprehending" what you allege you are capable of doing. Instead you prefer your simplistic "god created genera" creationist nonsense because it fits into your religious agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Your tenuous grasp of the subject matter is revealed when you make ignorant statements of that nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What living thing is God?

Not sure what you're asking. God is a spirit but he can materialize.

You just shot down Bossy.

God is not a living thing therefore life came from non-life if life came from God.

God feels emotions and everything we do but he has the ability to be a spirit. If Boss believes as you say then we disagree but that is not how I took it. There are many different beliefs concerning the creator like and what he is and what his name is and his abilities. All our questions some day will be answered.

I believe God in his full glory is a spirit anytime he is gonna approach man I believe he is Jesus or before he took the name Jesus he was the Angel of the LORD.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

This is where logic comes into play was that not a point of argument you were making earlier ?

Which argument? I made a bunch a logical refutations, perhaps a few arguments. Please be more specific.

You base your arguments on logic but you don't when it comes to the origins of life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.


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.

Your tenuous grasp of the subject matter is revealed when you make ignorant statements of that nature.

What Boss stated was a fact.through small adaptations,selective breeding,and cross breeding we can produce new breeds or species but that is the only evidence we possess. with all the selective breeding and cross breeding you want to use you will never produce a new family or group. It's like breeding a horse and a donkey to get a mule. Mules are sterile and can't produce offspring to carry on that breed. The mule would die off if it were not for selective breeding and or cross breeding.

There is a genetic barrier ,you can breed members of the same group and not produce offspring. There is a genetic barrier there that evolutionists do not want to admit exists. It is absurd to think that all living organisms evolved from one cell even more absurd to believe that spontaneous generation produced many different groups.


After millions of observations we can safely say and be in agreement with the bible where it say's 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. The reason is simple when breeding takes place genetic information is being bread out not new information in that is why we see parents only reproducing what they are. That is also why we see more illnesses and shorter life spans and other problems with let's say like a pure breed of dog. The gene pool becomes smaller by breeding out genetic data and that is why a mutt will be healthier because they come from a much larger and diverse gene pool.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Your tenuous grasp of the subject matter is revealed when you make ignorant statements of that nature.

What Boss stated was a fact.

No, it was ignorance. The evidence for the diversification of genera is in the DNA. Your simplistic assumption that a single small genetic change will result in an entirely different genus is where you are making your mistake. A different genus emerges as a result of the combination of many genetic changes and can take millions of years. That scientific evidence exists in the DNA.

 

[newpolitics]

This is where logic comes into play was that not a point of argument you were making earlier ?

Which argument? I made a bunch a logical refutations, perhaps a few arguments. Please be more specific.

You base your arguments on logic but you don't when it comes to the origins of life.

I don't? How do you know?

We all base our arguments on logic. It's simply a matter of whether our inferences are valid and our premises sound.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your tenuous grasp of the subject matter is revealed when you make ignorant statements of that nature.

What Boss stated was a fact.

No, it was ignorance. The evidence for the diversification of genera is in the DNA. Your simplistic assumption that a single small genetic change will result in an entirely different genus is where you are making your mistake. A different genus emerges as a result of the combination of many genetic changes and can take millions of years. That scientific evidence exists in the DNA.

What you stated was merely conjecture. You're sticking to the bounds of the theory thinking it takes millions of years for this to take place. First off you do not have a viable mechanism that is the engine for this theory that is above reproach. If you're are a neo darwinism advocate, that is my specialty since I worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years.

Then you consider the evidence for punctuated equilibrium that flies in the face of your statement.

 

[edthecynic]

Not sure what you're asking. God is a spirit but he can materialize.

You just shot down Bossy.

God is not a living thing therefore life came from non-life if life came from God.

God feels emotions and everything we do but he has the ability to be a spirit. If Boss believes as you say then we disagree but that is not how I took it. There are many different beliefs concerning the creator like and what he is and what his name is and his abilities. All our questions some day will be answered.

I believe God in his full glory is a spirit anytime he is gonna approach man I believe he is Jesus or before he took the name Jesus he was the Angel of the LORD.

Angels are spirits too, so you are back to the physical coming from the nonphysical and life coming from non-life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which argument? I made a bunch a logical refutations, perhaps a few arguments. Please be more specific.

You base your arguments on logic but you don't when it comes to the origins of life.

I don't? How do you know?

Please correct me if I am wrong it would not be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You just shot down Bossy.

God is not a living thing therefore life came from non-life if life came from God.

God feels emotions and everything we do but he has the ability to be a spirit. If Boss believes as you say then we disagree but that is not how I took it. There are many different beliefs concerning the creator like and what he is and what his name is and his abilities. All our questions some day will be answered.

I believe God in his full glory is a spirit anytime he is gonna approach man I believe he is Jesus or before he took the name Jesus he was the Angel of the LORD.

Angels are spirits too, so you are back to the physical coming from the nonphysical and life coming from non-life.

How can you make the assertion the spiritual realm is non-life ?