Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[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?

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

A person should be able to detect design in nature and there is a lot of evidence that logically would infer design in nature. Purposeful design is hard to be mistaken on using logic.

 

[newpolitics]

Well, I haven't made any claims that I, or anybody, can demonstrate abiogenesis. Not yet. I happen to believe this is the most plausible explanation, and believe it is likely what happened, but that is different than claiming it did happen or claiming I can demonstrate it. Also, just because scientists can not currently create life in a lab, doesn't mean it didn't happen naturally. There is no logical connectivity there. However, there is considerable evidence to support the possibility of abiogenesis , such as the Miller-Urey Experiment, which, when improved upon and corrected for in later years, provided even stronger evidence that multiple amino acids were able to form on the proto-earth.

I don't agree with you, that it is "illogical" that abiogenesis happened. This is an incoherent statement, and commits the fallacy of reification (Meyers does as well), using an abstraction or an a priori model and placing it onto actual reality. Although reification is often use in science, it is not a fallacy, because models can be tested using predictions, and based on those predictions, can verify whether a model of reality (eg., The Standard Model) maps accurately to reality. In the case of Einstein, he used reification in predicting black holes using only theory. However, no one claimed black holes existed simply because of math. We had to actually find them first, and did, proving Einsteins math correct once again. In the case of Stephen Meyers, he creates a model he cant test, yet draws conclusions from about the real world simply using math, and calling it a "fact." This is a fallacy of reification, treating an abstraction such as math as if i were descriptive of something in the real world.

Logic pertains to thoughts and reasoning, which require a mind. Abiogenesis is about something that would have happened outside of any mind. Put differently, you are making an a priori presupposition about something necessarily a posteriori. OR... You are making an induction from your mind (using math and a reification fallacy) and using that to put limits on the capabilities of the actual world. . I don't see this is as at all valid or demonstrative of any truth, but merely an opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

Ok you're suggesting since they look so similar at a stage of reproduction they must be related. That is not just circular reasoning but conjecture. What you ignore how vastly different the genetic data is.

If you take the average difference between chimps DNA and humans DNA it is 5% and that is being generous I believe it's higher but we can take that up later if you like. The actual difference I am speaking of is out of 3 billion base pairs of DNA the difference is 150,000,000 base pairs that is a lot of beneficial mutations that would have to become the norm in the population for a chimp to evolve a human.

Now we know how rare beneficial mutations are and we know that when a mutation does cause change it does more often cause harm. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and we can point to very few beneficial mutations. We are to believe that there must be many beneficial mutations not just between human and chimp but species that supposedly evolved in to something completely distinct.

Now if you wish to challenge me on mutations you name all the beneficial mutations and let's see if it even approaches the number for genetic disorders.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

Most cells look alike hmm they must be related and will produce the same family of organism how ridiculous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

One more thing, mutations are errors and there are Enzymes trying to correct these errors making it even harder for these errors to spread through the population and becoming the norm in the gene pool.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

Most cells look alike hmm they must be related and will produce the same family of organism how ridiculous.

Obviously you know nothing about Histology. BTW, Histology also supports evolution.

Nerve cell

Red Blood cell

Smooth Muscle Cell

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

Most cells look alike hmm they must be related and will produce the same family of organism how ridiculous.

Obviously you know nothing about Histology. BTW, Histology also supports evolution.

Nerve cell

Red Blood cell

Smooth Muscle Cell

Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.

 

[edthecynic]

Most cells look alike hmm they must be related and will produce the same family of organism how ridiculous.

Obviously you know nothing about Histology. BTW, Histology also supports evolution.

Nerve cell

Red Blood cell

Smooth Muscle Cell

Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.

You just admitted that all life came from the nonliving ground.
Thank you.

 

[Boss]

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?

The fossil record simply does not demonstrate cross-genus speciation. Neither does DNA. The fact that early stage embryos look similar, also does not prove cross-genus speciation. So when are you going to present this irrefutable evidence you have claimed exists?

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 [THEORY], 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.

And NONE of it proves your theory of cross-genus speciation. If embryos with similar spinal development emerged, and then 'decided' what to be, you might have something approaching a valid theory. If, once in a blue moon, a duck embryo inadvertently produced something other than a duck, perhaps you would have a valid theory. If any living thing were able to reproduce embryos which resulted in a different genus, then you'd have a valid theory. As it stands, you don't.

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.

Early development being common is not proof of cross genus speciation. In order for a few genera to produce many genera, you must prove cross-genus speciation, and you haven't. Millions and billions of years can pass, and a duck will never produce anything other than a duck.

Your kneejerk reaction will be that a fish embryo can't become a chicken.

Is that a knee-jerk reaction? Or is that the truth and a fact?

The scientific reality (NOT) 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.

This is TOO funny! It's a "scientific reality" but this "has not yet been done?" Anyone see a logic problem with this statement? How can something that has never been done, be a reality? Oh... it's just a matter of time? All it takes is something so simple and easy, but it hasn't been done yet. I guess scientists must be spending too much time on message boards, arguing with morons? When you show me a chicken that was created using ONLY the genes and DNA of a duck, I will believe that such a thing is possible.

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.

I have not denied science or things that science predicts. It's fine to read, but when you read and interpret things to be "facts and reality" that "haven't yet been done" it's problematic, because you aren't comprehending basic logic.

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.

There is no evidence it happened in one huge change OR over millions of years. Cross-genus speciation simply does not happen. Embryo similarity doesn't prove it happened, DNA doesn't prove it happened, fossil records do not prove it happened, genetic engineering doesn't prove it happened. Therefore, it simply is NOT A REALITY!

You can mock and ridicule me for making this true statement, I don't care. I didn't say "god created genera" and I am not a religious person, we've already covered that. Here is yet another example of YOUR "religious faith" in science as your god. You firmly believe cross-genus speciation is a "scientific reality" and it simply isn't, and you have not proven it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Obviously you know nothing about Histology. BTW, Histology also supports evolution.

Nerve cell

Red Blood cell

Smooth Muscle Cell

Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.

You just admitted that all life came from the nonliving ground.
Thank you.

So we are back to the origins question see how that works ? how did the first cell form with all the needed parts to reproduce itself then to form the diversity of all life ?

The bible makes a better argument then all the text books in school. God created each family group and we see small changes in each of those families and extrapolate because small changes happen within each family group not seeing that there are limits to adapting once an organism encounters an environment they can't adapt to, what happens to them ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Obviously you know nothing about Histology. BTW, Histology also supports evolution.

Nerve cell

Red Blood cell

Smooth Muscle Cell

Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.

You just admitted that all life came from the nonliving ground.
Thank you.

God is life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

Ok you're suggesting since they look so similar at a stage of reproduction they must be related. That is not just circular reasoning but conjecture.

Your distortion of the scientific facts is 100% conjecture. You are alleging that entirely different sets of DNA are responsible for the development of spines, nerves, eyes, organs and everything else that fish, reptiles, birds and mammals all have in common. No wonder you believe in religious nonsense.

What you ignore how vastly different the genetic data is.

Thank you for proving that you know less than nothing about "genetic data".

Human Genome Project

Primer

Mouse and man share 99% genetic similarity - including the genes to make a tail.
Humans and mice shared a common ancestor about 100 million years ago.
A mouse has about the same number of genes as a man.
Due to preserved genetic similarities, even after 530 million years of separation, introduced human genes can operate within the Fruit Fly genome.
The nematode worm shares many genes with human beings, including the genes to make muscle.
Puffer fish and Zebra fish are so genetically similar to human beings that their genomes are being deciphered as ‘model’ organisms for research.
The California purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) genome has 23,300 genes, of which 7077 are shared with human beings.
The dog genome also reveals many shared genes and diseases with humans; about 94% of the dog genome shows conserved synteny with mice, rats and humans.
Birds and human beings have three very similar genes affecting blunt limb buds.
Genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is between 96% and 99.4%
‘LUCA’, the ‘Last Universal Common Ancestor’ existed around four billion years ago. We are probably descended from a mud-burrowing worm.
The common ancestor of all placental mammals was probably a small nocturnal shrew-like creature, snuffling about more than 80 million years ago.
Dogs, goldfish, and ferns have more chromosomes than human beings.
75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.
The split between plants and animals occurred about 1.6 billion years ago.
Around 100 genes in flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana (Thale Cress) are closely related to human disease genes; and Arabidopsis has most of its genes in common with all other plants on Earth.

The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Here is the irrefutable factual DNA evidence that you believe is nothing but "conjecture".

Which embryo is human?

Since all vertebrates (animals with backbones) evolved from a common ancestor, the genetic information that guides their development is nearly the same.

The early stages of embryonic development clearly demonstrate the ancestral DNA common across all genera. That you have no knowledge of these scientific facts throws considerable doubt on your specious claims to have "worked in the field and studied mutations for over 11 years".

Most cells look alike hmm they must be related and will produce the same family of organism how ridiculous.

Only thing ridiculous is you pretending that you work in the field of genetic mutations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.

You just admitted that all life came from the nonliving ground.
Thank you.

So we are back to the origins question see how that works ? how did the first cell form with all the needed parts to reproduce itself then to form the diversity of all life ?

The bible makes a better argument then all the text books in school. God created each family group and we see small changes in each of those families and extrapolate because small changes happen within each family group not seeing that there are limits to adapting once an organism encounters an environment they can't adapt to, what happens to them ?

Thanks for ruining your own credibility on this topic.

 

[Boss]

The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.

That is really funny, since their lead scientist is a self-described Christian believer in God.

 

[Boss]

75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.

So we didn't come from monkeys, we actually came from pumpkins and cabbages!

...And it's Creationists who are the nutters???

 

[Derideo_Te]

The scientists at the Human Genome Project have credibility while believers spouting religious gibberish do not.

That is really funny, since their lead scientist is a self-described Christian believer in God.

Your ignorance is out of date!

 

[numan]

75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin - 57% the same as a cabbage.

So we didn't come from monkeys, we actually came from pumpkins and cabbages!

...And it's Creationists who are the nutters???

That is really a very stupid thing to write, Bossy Man.
.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow you just convinced me all my work was misinterpreted. Look the designer used the same ingredients to produce all living organisms which the bible claims all living organisms were created from the ground so that shows there were similarities but you twits ignore the vast difference that our genes produce.

You just admitted that all life came from the nonliving ground.
Thank you.

So we are back to the origins question see how that works ? how did the first cell form with all the needed parts to reproduce itself then to form the diversity of all life ?

The bible makes a better argument then all the text books in school. God created each family group and we see small changes in each of those families and extrapolate because small changes happen within each family group not seeing that there are limits to adapting once an organism encounters an environment they can't adapt to, what happens to them ?

And what might those parts be?