I know you you would love that to be true, but you are deulding yourself. We are commanded to love our enemies Let’s see what my church is doing right now: Providing food, education, and financial help to children in poverty around the world; volunteering at the local food pantry, and helping fund many other organizations dedicated to serving people’s physical needs. So go ahead and keep thinking Christians are murderous monsters; we’ll keep loving you anyway.
I’m not saying other proteins won’t work, but DNA encodes for the correct amino acid sequences for functional proteins. So what if other proteins work? Proteins are composed of hundreds or thousands of amino acids in one specific order; regardless of whether or not different proteins would work, DNA still codes for proteins that DO WORK. Life is a complicated process and throwing a bunch of amino acids together isn’t going to give you proteins that work for life.
You should learn your terms. I said macroevolution is not observed.
Darwin’s finches are an example of what’s called microevolution. Microevolution is variation of a creatures already existing genetic code by natural selection, meaning a finch turning into a different kind of finch. Organsims only have so much information in their genetic code.
Macroevolution is adding genetic information to form a new kind of animal. Dogs only have their specific set of genetic information so for dogs to evolve into anything else that they were not previously, they would need more genetic information. That addition of new information is what is not observed.
@Calilasseia a few questions
Cosmology, your braneworld theroy still requires the braneworld to be already present correct? If so where did that come from? No matter how far back you go you always get back to the question “where did it come from” so I would like to know what you think is eternal.
Because either something came from nothing (which I think we can rule out) or something has always existed period, so in your mind what has always existed?
That’s kinda my point; I don’t think nothing can exist cause that’s self contradicting, thus I think there must have been something from which everything came; you get the idea.
Abiogenesis, do you think life is made up of just chemicals? Do you think a bunch of chemcials formed up in just the right way and then all of a sudden it had life in it? Say someone cuts an artery of mine and I die, but the world’s top doctors get together and put everything back in just the right way. Why woudn’t I come back to life? If natural process could make life, then why can’t humans with intelligent minds put it together as well or at least fix it? It almost seems as if there’s more to life than just chemicals and structures.
Now this is not to say that I think all the chemicals for life could all organize themselves in just the right way, as Sir Fred Hoyle, a world famous Astronomer who’s work in science made him a Christian, puts the odds of abiogenesis at about 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power; but that’s not what I’m asking about right now.
Macroevolution, I would like to know what convinces you that mutations, which are literally described as “mistakes in the genetic code” produced all the systems of life. Say a sea creature is evolving onto the land, how do random mutations give it the necessary information to build the necessary proteins to build lungs which are much more than just bags of air but need a whole new system of blood circulation to function?
Irriducible complexity,
here is a picture of the inner workings of a leaf. There is much I could go into with this, but I will keep it short.
See the hole in the bottom called the stoma? That is there so that CO2 can get in to the photosynthesizing cells for them to produce the plants food. See the two guard cells around the stoma? Those cells open and close the stoma to keep water from escaping. See, if the stoma is left open for too long, too much water will leak out and the leaf will die; that’s why the guard cells are needed to open and close it.
So my question is how did the first leaf survive if it didn’t have stomata (the plural of stoma) yet? The cells couldn’t get the CO2 they need without those holes. Now say this first leaf did have stoma, how did it survive without the guard cells to keep it from losing all it’s water?
If the leaves didn’t have as tiny of a thing as these guard cells, the leaves wouldn’t have been able to produce food for the plant thus the plant would die and no further evolution would occur.
This is one example of many many irriducibly complex systems. Some others are the eye, the ear, the basic cell, and cilia on cells.
I would like to know how you explain uniformity in nature. For example, trees and mushrooms exchange nutrients with each other. Mushrooms dig down into tree’s root, absorb nutrients they need and give the tree nutrients it needs in the process. If both need the other to survive, how did one survive before the other evolved? And how did they develop this mutualistic relationship? Note there are countless other examples of mutalism in nature, animals that depend on the actions of other animals to survive; it seems to suggest they were all there at once designed to work together.
If we are just evolved monkeys, animals, where does our sense of morality come from? For example sleeping with a whole bunch of woman behind my wife’s back would be wrong correct? Certain things like that may increase my human flourishing, but that doesn’t make them right. Why is that wrong for us if we are just animals? Why is okay for a lion to kill another lion, but it’s not okay for a human to kill another human? Why is something that increases our human flourishing wrong if we are just animals?
Finally, this is kinda a dumb one, but I just want to see what you think of it. If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Why don’t we see a constant chain of something in the middle half monkey, half human? You look for intermediate fossils in the fossil record, but why wouldn’t there be some still alive today?
For the record, using majority opinon as an argument doesn’t mean much. I’ve heard top scientists say they believe they are fish, something which I think people in future generations will laugh at; but my point is the majority opinion has been found wrong many times in history. Why? The main reasons in my opinion are bias and a presumption they are right.
But I don’t want to argue about evolution for too long because even if evolution were true, it doesn’t disprove God and if it’s not true it doesn’t necessarily prove God.
For the record, yes I know the big bang wasn’t technically an explosion; it was a rapidly expanding singularity, I use the word “explosion” to illistrate a point. Saying the universe came into existence by matter just expanding (exploding in a random motion) into existence is essentially like saying a bunch of movers just tossed all your furniture into your house and it happened to land with all the couches around the tables perfectly set up in a way you would expect a person to set them up. There are many examples of constants and laws that are set on a razors edge to allow the universe and life to exist, showing why I don’ think the universe was just “tossed” into existence.
The big bang is the “what happened” what is not explained is the “how happened”
Also real quick I’m not gonna look for the quote, but some people complained about my quoting Stephen Hawking because he’s an atheist. This is an important distinction between two sciences: observable science and historical science. I trust Stephen Hawking’s observation of how fine-tuned the expansion rate of the universe is because that’s observable science; but I don’t agree with Stephen Hawking on what caused that first expansion. That’s historical science; we weren’t there at the beginning; what happened is largely speculation and a matter of opinion.
Oh dear… 
… All this time I thought they were just monuments and tourist attractions from all the different places during your travels. Granted, I admit I was a bit puzzled as to why the overweight nurse was on the beach being straddled by a couple of bikini-clad porn stars. But, hey, who am I to judge the medical practices of other cultures? Aw, damn… Now I have to find a way to explain why I need to take all those pics off my refrigerator.
