Can anyone explain the origin of any gene? Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?

[McBell]

To science everything happened naturally, without God, unless it can be shown scientifically that God exists,,,,,,,,,,,, and even then I imagine it would also have to be shown that God actually did step in to do something.

Until such time as there is a need to invoke magic, there is no reason to invoke magic.
"GodDidIt" does not answer the how.
And you are right, even if it is proven that magic is the answer, not your god or anyone elses god gets a default win.
For all we know it was pixies who provided the magic.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Until such time as there is a need to invoke magic, there is no reason to invoke magic.
"GodDidIt" does not answer the how.
And you are right, even if it is proven that magic is the answer, not your god or anyone elses god gets a default win.
For all we know it was pixies who provided the magic.

I already proved God created everything.

 

[John53]

I already proved God created everything.

With assumptions and circular reasoning you proved it to yourself but not to another person.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I already proved God created everything.

Maybe if you say it 100x, it will magically come true.

 

[Brian2]

Until such time as there is a need to invoke magic, there is no reason to invoke magic.
"GodDidIt" does not answer the how.
And you are right, even if it is proven that magic is the answer, not your god or anyone elses god gets a default win.
For all we know it was pixies who provided the magic.

Science cannot answer how. All it can do is provide educated guesses provided there is an assumption that God did not do it and pixies or anything else did not do it.
Faith in God does not provide the how answer either. But it provides a who answer, a more important answer. But it is an answer of faith just as believing any "how" science answer is believing the answer on faith.

 

[McBell]

I already proved God created everything.

Nope.
Not even close

 

[McBell]

The posted did not have a link.

Fair point.
Though, if there is no linked article to peruse, how do you know it is not plausible?

If any mention of evolution or abiogenesis or anything over 6000 years old is mentioned, it proves a false assumption, false reasoning and a false conclusion.

Interesting.
And if the missing article was merely the OP of this thread, would you still think it not plausible?

 

[McBell]

Science cannot answer how. All it can do is provide educated guesses provided there is an assumption that God did not do it and pixies or anything else did not do it.
Faith in God does not provide the how answer either. But it provides a who answer, a more important answer. But it is an answer of faith just as believing any "how" science answer is believing the answer on faith.

"GodDidIt" is not even an educated guess.
It is a belief.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

"GodDidIt" is not even an educated guess.
It is a belief.

It just happened is a religious belief,
Why isn’t there multiple trees of life?
After all if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, surely it happened multiple times each resulting in its own descent tree.

 

[Brian2]

"GodDidIt" is not even an educated guess.
It is a belief.

Well yes and no. There is some education behind it even if not the sort learnt at universities.
However, that it happened or even could have happened without a God is also a belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already proved God created everything.

No, you confirmed that not even you believe that when you ran away from defending your "proofs". You admitted that you were wrong by doing so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well yes and no. There is some education behind it even if not the sort learnt at universities.
However, that it happened or even could have happened without a God is also a belief.

Actually the latter is knowledge. Learn the difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It just happened is a religious belief,

But that is a strawman. No one says that. We argue how it happened with evidence. A concept that you do not understand.

Why isn’t there multiple trees of life?

Because the idea is not supported by any evidence.

After all if abiogenesis is such a slam dunk, surely it happened multiple times each resulting in its own descent tree.

Oh, I see, you are asking why abiogenesis did not occur multiple times. Probably because even though it is possible it is a low possibility event. That would mean that even if there were several competing lines that only one made it to the point of being self sustaining. And once well established ever increasing competition would make later attempts fail Those packets of chemicals would be just a sack lunch for existing life.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But that is a strawman. No one says that. We argue how it happened with evidence. A concept that you do not understand.


Because the idea is not supported by any evidence.

Oh, I see, you are asking why abiogenesis did not occur multiple times. Probably because even though it is possible it is a low possibility event. That would mean that even if there were several competing lines that only one made it to the point of being self sustaining. And once well established ever increasing competition would make later attempts fail Those packets of chemicals would be just a sack lunch for existing life.

All evolutionist theory and thoughts is just based on circular reasoning and false assumptions.

It is like a house of cards, pull one and it all false apart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All evolutionist theory and thoughts is just based on circular reasoning and false assumptions.

It is like a house of cards, pull one and it all false apart.

That is another claim of yours that not only have you never been able to support but actually appears to apply to your beliefs.

Remember, understanding the Bible is the first step to atheism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All evolutionist theory and thoughts is just based on circular reasoning and false assumptions.

You keep repeating this as if by repeating it you can make it be true.

 

[McBell]

You keep repeating this as if by repeating it you can make it be true.

Perhaps it is constantly repeated lest they forget?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The counting method used in the OP for probability is not stated, and it appears wildly incorrect. Copy errors in DNA create either hardship or benefits (or both), and so duplicating the result is not random. Survival acts as a filter, keeping the changes from being random. At the very least changes are only kept if they do not kill offspring.

Therefore a successful mutation is no longer random once it has been kept. Only the mutations which are rejected are random. Death and reproduction act as a filter, removing randomness. Therefore genes are not miraculously made out of spontaneous events but rather are built up with processes analogous to those which create a stalactite: which shape is never completely random yet is unguided.

 

[ratiocinator]

All evolutionist theory and thoughts is just based on circular reasoning and false assumptions.

I'm still waiting for even one single, solitary example of circular reasoning from science, or any false assumption.

You keep making this claim, so you should be qualifying at a faith-based belief or back it up with some actual evidence. The latter requires you to cite real sources and point at some specific example or circular reasoning.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I'm still waiting for even one single, solitary example of circular reasoning from science, or any false assumption.

You keep making this claim, so you should be qualifying at a faith-based belief or back it up with some actual evidence. The latter requires you to cite real sources and point at some specific example or circular reasoning.

I have already given many examples but your circular reasoning mind set cannot see it.