Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote: That is variation in reproduction,or evidence that God created and made life to produce after its kind it is no different than the many different dog breeds or roses, on what basis do you claim it demonstrates life evolves? Darwin insisted that the tiny variation we see in a litter of kittens could be extrapolated ad infinitum generation after generation until the cat becomes a new and totally different creature and yet here you are 150 years later caiming the slight variation we see in cancer cells can be extrapolated ad infinitum generation after generation until the cancer becomes a new and totally different creature with no evidence still after 150 years.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: That is variation in reproduction,or evidence that God created and made life to produce after its kind it is no different than the many different dog breeds or roses, on what basis do you claim it demonstrates life evolves? Darwin insisted that the tiny variation we see in a litter of kittens could be extrapolated ad infinitum generation after generation until the cat becomes a new and totally different creature and yet here you are 150 years later caiming the slight variation we see in cancer cells can be extrapolated ad infinitum generation after generation until the cancer becomes a new and totally different creature with no evidence still after 150 years.

You state that you wish to be convinced, but the truth is that you wish to display your conviction.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: You state that you wish to be convinced, but the truth is that you wish to display your conviction.

I'm just going by the evidence you gave and it shows the same thing all of the other evidence shows and that is normal variation in reproduction. I have no convinction except based on evidence. Tell me the difference between reproduction and the cancer cells you brought up that you think is evidence life evolves because I see no difference. I mean we see the same thing with dogs,roses,cats,finches,rats,fish,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,humans and now cancer,etc.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: You state that you wish to be convinced, but the truth is that you wish to display your conviction.

I'm just going by the evidence you gave and it shows the same thing all of the other evidence shows and that is normal variation in reproduction. I have no convinction except based on evidence. Tell me the difference between reproduction and the cancer cells you brought up that you think is evidence life evolves because I see no difference. I mean we see the same thing with dogs,roses,cats,finches,rats,fish,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,humans and now cancer,etc.

ok, I am going to believe that you are being sincere.
If it is ok with you I would like you to take on the role of explaining what you know. And allowing me to ask you questions, to which you must then respond with explanations.

Agreed?

First question, what do you see is the same thing with dogs and cats? What is this "thing" you are speaking of. And please don't go to much into depth.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: First question, what do you see is the same thing with dogs and cats? What is this "thing" you are speaking of. And please don't go to much into depth.

I'm talking about normal variation in reproduction like with the many different dog breeds or many different cat breeds and I was trying to point out that your cancer example shows the same thing normal variation in reproduction and how this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves and I've already explained why.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: First question, what do you see is the same thing with dogs and cats? What is this "thing" you are speaking of. And please don't go to much into depth.

I'm talking about normal variation in reproduction like with the many different dog breeds or many different cat breeds and I was trying to point out that your cancer example shows the same thing normal variation in reproduction and how this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves and I've already explained why.

If it's not too much too ask, can we try not to refer back to your conclusions in each post?
ok, so my next question.
What do you mean by normal variation in reproduction?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: First question, what do you see is the same thing with dogs and cats? What is this "thing" you are speaking of. And please don't go to much into depth.

I'm talking about normal variation in reproduction like with the many different dog breeds or many different cat breeds and I was trying to point out that your cancer example shows the same thing normal variation in reproduction and how this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves and I've already explained why.

If it's not too much too ask, can we try not to refer back to your conclusions in each post?
ok, so my next question.
What do you mean by normal variation in reproduction?

Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: First question, what do you see is the same thing with dogs and cats? What is this "thing" you are speaking of. And please don't go to much into depth.

I'm talking about normal variation in reproduction like with the many different dog breeds or many different cat breeds and I was trying to point out that your cancer example shows the same thing normal variation in reproduction and how this is not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves and I've already explained why.

If it's not too much too ask, can we try not to refer back to your conclusions in each post?
ok, so my next question.
What do you mean by normal variation in reproduction?

Yes,we can refer back to my conclusions.I already told you what normal variation in reproduction is.I'll just use one example this time - the many different varieties of dogs shows normal variation in reproduction.

We are trying to build your argument. To show that x leads to y.
When you refer back to your conclusion you are jumping to the conclusion.

Next question.
Did dogs come from wolves?

Storyteller wrote:Genetics.

DNA.

Halsoft wrote:What even is the conversation here? Is somebody playing devils advocate on evolution? Its pretty simple stuff really. I think dog breeds is a great example of selective breeding. But as far as natural evolution you can just take a look around yourself and look at all the different kinds of people on the planet.

Audie wrote:

Halsoft wrote:What even is the conversation here? Is somebody playing devils advocate on evolution? Its pretty simple stuff really. I think dog breeds is a great example of selective breeding. But as far as natural evolution you can just take a look around yourself and look at all the different kinds of people on the planet.

There is of course nothing so obvious that people will not be able to talk themselves out of seeing it.