Re: Proof of God's existence? Why not evolution?

Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Mark Earnest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
> 
> > "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
> > 
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If god does "use" natural selection then evolution is occuring.
> >> >>
> >> >> > It does not stand to reason that as large scale a complexity as
> >> >> > the human organism could create itself,
> >> >>
> >> >> "create itself" ??? ... ofcourse we didn't create ourselves.
> >> >
> >> > O.K. I will rephrase.  It does not stand to reason that the human
> >> > species could have created itself over millions of year out of sea
> >> > algae.  That would require a spark from the divine, some kind of
> >> > divine assistance, even intervention.
> >>
> >> When you make false statement such as saying we evolved from see
> >> algae you loss credibility in the discussion, and clearly illustrate
> >> the weakness of your understanding of evolutionary theories.
> > 
> > Sea algae is the simplest (complete) form of life known.  It makes
> > sense that it is where life started.
> 
> No, because sea algae itself evolved from an ancient organism that had to 
> have been even simpiler. The original ancestor(s) of all life.
> 
> It is expected to be a "simple", rudimentary form of DNA, very similar to 
> RNA.
> 

     I would say that RNA is simpler and uses DNA as a means of
self-preservation.  We are merely a part of an on-going (evolving)
experiment by RNA to see how it can best express itself.  For us, RNA
uses human sexual reproduction to recombine DNA as a means of changing
the way it is combined and relies on environmental changes to slightly
mutate it over longer timeframes as a means of accellerating or
decellerating recombination.  All life above the prokaryotic stage is
a part of this vast RNA experiment.  Prions like that which cause
CJD/BSE are not a part of this experiment but are examples of other
similar "experiments" that are based on amino acids rather than
nucleic acids.
                                   Cheers,
                                      Pat

> > 
> >>
> >> That said, your only support for your belief is your inability to
> >> comprehend how we have evolved.
> >>
> >> I will admit that even a single cell is incredibly complex, let alone
> >> a human.
> >>
> >> But humanities inability to understand or explain certain phenomenon
> >> has 
>  no
> >> relevance on reality.
> > 
> > Yes it does.  If man can not explain it, it is likely a function of
> > the infinite, i.e. God.
> 
> No, if man can't explain it, man can't explain it. That's all. It has no 
> bearing on reality.
> 
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Whether we comprehend it or not black holes exists.
> >> Whether we comprehend it or not quantum states exists.
> >> Whether we comprehend it or not gravity exists.
> > Agreed.  And whether we comprehend it or not, God exists.
> 
> However scientific evidence exists for each of my examples.
> 
> 
> >> >> > without some kind of help.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you have to base this claim on?
> >> >
> >> > Consider natural selection a box of building blocks for children.
> >> > It takes something far greater (than the blocks) to build toy
> >> > houses and buildings with them. Natural selection is a great set of
> >> > building blocks for creating mankind.  But it just makes no sense
> >> > at all to think that the blocks could somehow assemble themselves.
> >>
> >> LMFAO!!!
> >>
> >> There must be a name for this fallacy. Every theist uses one version
> >> or another but they are always false.
> >>
> >> You can not compare reality to human activities or human creations.
> >> Making analogies like this alone demonstrates your arrogance; If
> >> humans can't do it or explain it it must not be true.
> > 
> > If you deny the order of reality, then you have no argument at all,
> > because arguments require comparisons.
> 
> Ofcourse.
> 
> But your analogies are faulty. Humans are a conscious entity.
> 
> The universe is a mathematical system.
> 
> You are comparing apples and rocks, try using an appropriate analogy.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Natural selection is not a set of building blocks. Reality is not a
> >> toy house.
> >>
> >> Natural selection is a concept, not a tool or element of evolution,
> >> but a restriction on what is required to survive.
> >>
> >> > Nothing else in nature bahaves that way.
> >>
> >> So I guess galaxies don't exist, planets can't form, and uranium is a
> >> lie? 
> >>
> >> The only difficult thing is the original chemical reaction that
> >> yields a molecule capable of replicating, breaking down compounds and
> >> mutating. 
> >>
> >> Once you have that, you have life.
> > 
> > Let's see you do it in a laboratory.
> 
> Again, whether I, or any human can do something, makes no difference.
> 
> I can't create a quantum singularity either, so does that mean stars don't 
> go supernova and collapse to a black hole?
> 
> How is my ability to do, or not do something have any bearing on reality?
> 
> 
> >> >
> >> > So why not the creation of humankind?  Surely the creation of man
> >> > requires intelligence and forethought and a great deal of care as
> >> > well...
> >>
> >> Again your entire basis is your inability to comprehend the power of
> >> evolution.
> >>
> >> We can't define reality, we can only study it. All objective study
> >> and reasoning points to evolution rather then spontaneous creation.
> >>
> >> Do you even realize that you are using ignorance as support for god?
> > 
> > No, I have seen what I am talking about.  I have encountered God and
> > conversed with him, and do so daily, learning from him and about him
> > every day of my life.  That is the opposite of ignorance about God.
> > 
> 
> I am not claiming you have ignorance about god, but ignorance about 
> scientific explanations and theories.
> 
> You can not possible claim that these theories are wrong if you do not even 
> know what they are.