On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

How do you know it isn't due to a diversion a long time ago, before mammals became plentiful?

 

I am sorry, you are forgetting about the nervous system and the brain an eye is connected to, you are forgetting it is not one eye but always a couple, and you are forgetting about the feelings of pleasure a man experiences looking at a blonde with minimal colors of cosmetics and feelings of displeasure when there are too many colors on the same blond. Also you are forgetting that some time ago time the Earth was too hot for any life to survive, less to make changes in a certain direction. You don't know when it cooled down as you don't know the starting conditions of the components, it could be 10 million years ago, it could be a million years ago, but as well it could be 10000 years ago. To play safe if you were God and you had 5000 years - how would you do?

 

Dmanisi Skull 5, discovered in 2005. Human or Ape?

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html

 

My original point was even though DNA sequences might be similar, that doesn't mean they are related. And the complexity of the eye should be in it of itself evidence of an creator. How would explain the complexity then?

 

Human suffering from a certain disease.

http://creation.mobi/dmanisi

 

or an ape suffering from a certain disease . Don't be deceived by the artistic reconstruction. If the artist was given a task to make it look like an ape, he would do with the same skull. You can do it in Photshop. it is just a little touch up here and there. Once I looked at fossils and found that scientists lie about human fossils the most. Certainly there is not just one lie in this lengthy article.

 

That doesn't account for Homo habilis and Homo neanderthalensis.

 

The article was unable to refute the evidence of the skulls. They offered a theory (but no evidence) that these skulls represent victims of cretinism. They can only hope that more "normal" skulls turn up at the site to support a theory that these first skulls might be aberrations of some kind.

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena.

If you believe mutation is possible, then sometimes mutation can be beneficial. It does not have to produce a working eye as we know it. Eyespots in a cavity would be an advantage because it would be protected. Eyespots in a cavity with a small opening would be an advantage because it would provide more directional information and start to act like a pinhole camera.

My question was more about the diversity that we see in eye structures in different creatures. Why so many different independent creations? (but of course the answer is that God knew exactly what each creature would need... etc, etc).

It seems odd that you demand proof of evolution and abiogenesis, but you accept (with no proof) the story that God created man from the dust of the earth. Why do you require no evidence of the story in Genesis?

 

And tecoyah was silent....

http://TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

He might have missed this post of yours but I didn't.

There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE OF PROOF that a GOD exists....and while there is no evidence or proof a GOD does not exist we do have the Probability Calculations.

The Probability that a GOD as advertised in the Bible, Koran...etc....exist is 1 chance in 10^178th.

A Statistical Impossibility exists at 1 chance in 10^150th.

So while there is not a ZERO PROBABILITY such a GOD exists....it is so unlikely and so improbable that such a possibility exists at a chance that is lower that a Statistical Impossibility.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

And if you are a Chemical Engineer....then you should know that a Virus...which is NOT ALIVE....has DNA and is simply a very long chain molecule and is just one step below life.

This details out for us just how close the inanimate is to the animate.

AA

 

Was that supposed to be evidence that God literally created man from the dust of the earth (as described in Genesis)?

The shorthand version of that website is... life is really complex so that proves it was "special creation." If that's all you need as evidence then I could say life is really complex so that proves a massive amount of evolution took place at the microscopic level and then the best branches of those organisms continued to develop along evolutionary branches suggested by similarities in genetic patterns.

I believe God caused the Big Bang, but I do not consider it proven. It is a matter of faith. I believe God created the universe, and life as we know it, in ways that are consistent with the evidence being uncovered by science. If you want me to believe God did it in some way that is inconsistent with the evidence we see around us, you would have to show me more proof than the claim that "life is too complex to be formed by chemical reactions, evolution, and natural selection."

 

I am glad that at least some members who believe in GOD understand that if such a GOD exists he would have used these natural processes such as Quantum and Biological Evolution to develop the Universe and all life within.

Those who are aware that Evolution is a reality are also aware that the reality of evolution does not conflict in any way with the possibility that such a GOD might exist.

AA

 

Probably stunned at the credulity of anyone who accepted such obvious dreck as fact.

 

What you say is the message in the Noah story,... which reports the previous extinction,... and the sole survival of modern man,... somehow,...

 

Nah,... His problem is that he already accepts Genesis in his own way,... butt he denies evolution so educated people can not then also believe that Genesis was correct.

Why does he do this,... instead of getting evolution people to the the Genesis genealogy,... which enumerated the same 22 "species" which scripture calls "kinds" of men.

 

But what about you,...
The list of the 22 species discovered in Paleontology are matched in a very similar story,... about a first Adam evolving into the three racial stocks which Noah's 3 son represented.
But you mock that too.

 

Dave....it is not possible for only one man and one woman to populate the planet as they simply do not have the necessary genetic diversity to breed beyond just a few generations before they died out from sterility and genetic birth defects.

AA

 

You ignore that Christ said he was The Truth,... personified.
That means his father is Reality,... which clearly does exist.

 

And we know that how exactly?

There is no evidence...no proof....nothing.

AA

 

?
You don't believe in Evolution,...?

 

Proof of what...?

The Bible says Christ explained this idea clearly in John 14:6-12.
And it makes sense now, too.

Truth was inside of Rev Martin Luther King,... and he brought the social changes to America as the force of his "Truth set his people free."

 

They did not offer a theory, they offered a speculation with a goal to reach a preconceived conclusion. So they have used the same scientific method as the makers of the text and of the conclusions they argued to.
Looking at both sides at equal standing you have chosen the one which confirm your personal beliefs.
You have not bothered scrutinize the text and examine the evidence you of the side which confirm to your personal beliefs.
While obviously one would see things are made by wild imagination with no explanation why is it so.
I just glanced at the both side, and I can tell you no good police detective would let your side slide if given a task to investigate.

 

Of course I do...and it is not my belief as it is a fact.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

There is no existing evidence of proof that either Jesus was the son or GOD nor is their evidence or proof that a GOD exists.

None at all.

AA

 

editing