- Reaction score
yes, i know that - and never ask for proof of god - merely evidence.Hmmm, are you beat? lol
Anyways, you're asking us to prove God does exist. But you obviously don't understand science. You ought to know that science can't prove anything. It can provide plausible evidence, and it has, but it can't prove a single thing. This is because science is totally, trial and error and a lot of guesswork. *note, I'm not saying that there's anything faulty with the scientific process, it's just that the way it is performed, it is totally incapable of actually proving anything.
science is in the business of explaining, not proving. with that in mind, let's take a look at your arguments...
demonstrably wrong. case in point - nylonase. nylonase is the product of a gene duplication mutation followed by a frame shift mutation.With that in mind, let me provide a bit of evidence for a creator.
For those of you who don't believe anything without citation, the following points are extracted (not word for word, but close) from the book Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D.
1) Mutations can only modify what already exists. The tendency is to preserve and not to innovate. There is no evidence that a mutation or series of mutations have ever created a new structure or organ.
theories in every scientific field still argue over the details of the theories. there are still arguments in germ theory - that doesn't imply germs aren't the causes of those diseases, nor does it imply disease is caused by demons.2) Theorists are still arguing over the basics of evolution. One of these current arguments is over whether evolution progresses mainly by natural selection of advantageous mutations or by the accumulation of neutral mutations. If after a couple hundred years, specialists still can't agree over the basic mechanism of their theory, perhaps the whole idea is wrong.
the arguments are over the specifics - not over whether evolution did and does occur.
demonstrably wrong. again, nylonase provides a perfect example.3) The source of new genes has not been established. A source for new genes to be formed has yet to be demonstrated with any certainty.
which is a prediction of evolutionary theory.4) The wild types are stronger than mutated types. A very few experimentally observed mutations in the fruit fly, Drosophila, reportedly confer a slight advantage under special conditions in the laboratory. However, the observed mutated flies have proven generally inferior to the wild type, and under ordinary conditions populations tend to revert to the wild type. The DDT-resistant populations of houseflies illustrate this fact. They do not reproduce as effectively as the wild type in the absence of DDT.
they're only problems to people that don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory. secondly, even if you did manage to disprove evolutionary theory (and win the Nobel Prize in the process), it wouldn't be any evidence for a creator, and esp. not for your specific god.I could go on and on with all these little things that when combine provide a massive problem for evolution as well as massive evidence for just believing in a Creator.
you also failed to address the rebuttal to your point of the universe being less than 10,000 years old.