Creationist evidence...

[outhouse]

God created deseases and viruses and he can send them to any nation and provoke death or suffery to anyone who deserves it

what kind of POE pucky is this????

God made logic in everything we create and that's to benefit human beings

he didnt put a ounce of logic in the sentance you just created. paragraphs cough, cough, paragraphs

 

[tumbleweed41]

... I said every action requires something that stimulates it, wether it's natural selection, or a organism or anything moving. Going to the bottom in the timeline you will find that it is logicaly required to have something or someone who can stimulate an action, but is not in itself stimulated by one....

No, it is not "logically required" since causality is a feature of our universe, you cannot apply it outside of, or "before" (and I use that word reluctantly), the very existence of our universe.

Cause cannot be shown to be necessary. Thus the causality argument is not evidence of a creator.
And that is what is being asked for in this thread, what evidence for Creationism?

 

[otokage007]

OK i have another question.

If you don't want to answer it in this thread, or you don't know, or i'm just being irritating i'll start a new thread.

So not all alleles from the parents are expressed in the offspring.

Is the chance of an allele being expressed in the offspring constant or random?

I don't understand the question but I can say that you can calculate the probabilities of that allele being present in the offspring.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Landerage]

No, it is not "logically required" since causality is a feature of our universe, you cannot apply it outside of, or "before" (and I use that word reluctantly), the very existence of our universe.

Cause cannot be shown to be necessary. Thus the causality argument is not evidence of a creator.
And that is what is being asked for in this thread, what evidence for Creationism?

I think your telling me that science don't know how the first action was made. Anyways you didn't change my opinion about this matter.
Another phenomena is the fact that the universe is expanding at a very great speed and this expansion leaves empty space in it but filled rapidly with material that nobody knows where did it come from. This is also an action that came from nowhere and scientists can't find a logical explanation of it.

 

[Landerage]

what kind of POE pucky is this????




he didnt put a ounce of logic in the sentance you just created. paragraphs cough, cough, paragraphs

If you have something useful to say or debate about or arguments please do, else ...

 

[idav]

I think your telling me that science don't know how the first action was made.

Nobody knows and those who claim to know are lying. Saying science has questions doesn't discredit it.

 

[painted wolf]

OK i have another question.

If you don't want to answer it in this thread, or you don't know, or i'm just being irritating i'll start a new thread.

So not all alleles from the parents are expressed in the offspring.

Is the chance of an allele being expressed in the offspring constant or random?

Depends on the allele.... some genes are dominant, some recessive and others express equally.

It can also depend on how the gene is expressed and even what gender you are.... females have two copies of the X chromosome and can express the mothers and the fathers gene copies in different cells of the body.
Which is how you end up with chickens that are pretty neatly divided between male and female.
Chicken's split sex identity revealed : Nature News

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think your telling me that science don't know how the first action was made.

No, I am saying an initial cause cannot be shown to be necessary.

Anyways you didn't change my opinion about this matter.

I am not attempting to change your opinion.
I am simply pointing out the flaw of your causality argument and waiting for evidence for Creationism.

 

[Dan4reason]

OK i have another question.

If you don't want to answer it in this thread, or you don't know, or i'm just being irritating i'll start a new thread.

So not all alleles from the parents are expressed in the offspring.

Is the chance of an allele being expressed in the offspring constant or random?

Sure I will try to answer that. Whether an allele is expressed depends on whether it is dominant or recessive. Our chromosomes can be put into pairs, and each chromosome in a pair is almost a copy of another. So for example, lets take chromosome pair #2, with chromosomes A and B. Each of these two chromosomes contains a copy of each gene in chromosome pair #2 in the exact same location.

Much of the time each copy of a gene is the same, however, sometimes they are not. So lets say that chromosome pair #2 contains gene R. There are two versions of gene R, allele X (on chromosome A), and allele y (on chromosome B). Allele X is the one that is expressed, so it is dominant, and allele y is recessive. If both chromosome have the same recessive or dominant allele of a gene, there is no problem because these chromosomes don't contradict each other. My explanation is a little of a generalization but that is for simplicity.

One gene is dominant while the other is recessive because if they are both in a chromosome pair, the expression of the dominant one will shut down or overpower the expression of the recessive one.

I hope this is what you were asking for. This might be review for you.

 

[Landerage]

No, I am saying an initial cause cannot be shown to be necessary.


I am not attempting to change your opinion.
I am simply pointing out the flaw of your causality argument and waiting for evidence for Creationism.

Yesterday there was a TV show, but I caught it at the end of it unfortunately... There was a scientist saying that most evolution progression lies on coincidence and a random choice of things, and another part lies on natural selection, adaptation to the environement etc.. And he was pointing out to certain vital things about evolution that were made by a coincidence, and as I remember he said things about certain types of amino acides being chosen in a random way among many other types, and the only way that evolution would have progrssed is by chosing those types of amino acids which happened in a coincidence. Im sorry for not having many details but perhaps you or someone else knows more, but if a great part of evolution and it's vital progression lies on coincidence, isn't that awkward ?

 

[rusra02]

No, I question your ability to actually present testable evidence of "intelligent design" or that a creator god did it. The whole (god is in the details) argument is weak and answers nothing.

A man traveled to a land far away. It was very cold and the man was freezing. He spied through the forest a house with smoke arising from the chimney. As he approached, he smelled food cooking in the cabin. Upon opening the door and entering the one-room cabin, he saw that it was well-furnished but empty. Ah, he said, what good fortune. This cabin built itself and thus provides me with all I need to live. I will stay here until spring. The man slept soundly after a fine meal, and did not awaken as the owner of the cabin returned. "Why are you in my house?" demanded the owner. Replied the sleepy traveler, "Why, this is not your house. I found this house that built itself, and I intend to stay here until spring."
What do you think the owner of that house will do next?

 

[McBell]

What do you think the owner of that house will do next?

I tell you what, as soon as god shows up.....
Oops.

Care to try again?

*waits for threats of god*

 

[tumbleweed41]

A man traveled to a land far away. It was very cold and the man was freezing. He spied through the forest a house with smoke arising from the chimney. As he approached, he smelled food cooking in the cabin. Upon opening the door and entering the one-room cabin, he saw that it was well-furnished but empty. Ah, he said, what good fortune. This cabin built itself and thus provides me with all I need to live. I will stay here until spring. The man slept soundly after a fine meal, and did not awaken as the owner of the cabin returned. "Why are you in my house?" demanded the owner. Replied the sleepy traveler, "Why, this is not your house. I found this house that built itself, and I intend to stay here until spring."
What do you think the owner of that house will do next?

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Douglas Adams

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yesterday there was a TV show, but I caught it at the end of it unfortunately... There was a scientist saying that most evolution progression lies on coincidence and a random choice of things, and another part lies on natural selection, adaptation to the environement etc.. And he was pointing out to certain vital things about evolution that were made by a coincidence, and as I remember he said things about certain types of amino acides being chosen in a random way among many other types, and the only way that evolution would have progrssed is by chosing those types of amino acids which happened in a coincidence. Im sorry for not having many details but perhaps you or someone else knows more, but if a great part of evolution and it's vital progression lies on coincidence, isn't that awkward ?

I would hardly call it "coincidence".
There are many factors involved, including spacial, environmental and reproductive isolationism, natural selection, biased mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, sexual selection, etc...

 

[Dan4reason]

Everything so far made sense in my life, not everything is perfect but I did do the best I can and I found God very close to me in everything I do, the good thing and the bad things. When something bad happens to me I review myself and I see if I broke any rule. And sometimes a crisis happens to any of us, but God asks us to have patience because : For indeed, with hardship [will be] ease (94:5) Indeed, with hardship [will be] ease.(94:6) God repeating it twice, means alot of patience is needed but that doesn't mean he have no mercy or he likes to make us suffer.

So when something bad happened to you that was because of God? Or was it because of the natural consequences of your misdeeds?

Well you think that values are there because there is a physical embodiement in our world. But I think the other way around, physical things exist because values should be taught to humans. I respect both opinions but both of us kinda said alot about it but I hope showed you my point.

I don't think we have physical embodiments for values. You won't see the honesty protein any time soon. Our morals result from our emotions and our thoughts. Emotions are the things that are physically embodied. We do not completely understand thoughts yet. We do know that thoughts have something strongly to do with brain activity.

Nobody made God, but God made us and he exist because he told us in religious books that I find no excuse not to beleive in them. The first duty for every human being is to know why is he here on life, and see what's behind his existence in my opinion, explaining things scientificaly doesn't make up for that duty. I did put a proof earlier that was a Qur'anic miracle, but many didn't agree that it was a proof, and until now nobody really answered me about why it's not a proof but some even left the thread so they don't reply... I think it's about people who just refuse to obey a "book" and go to what's good instead of what's right. It's a message sent from God and made sense in me wether in miracles, or everyday life, or things I felt, logic, dreams I had and other reasons, and I chose to folow it because I know it's right basing on all those reasons and I see no reason for anyone not to do so...

I don't think we should start with the assumption that God exists. Doing so is not rational.

What evidence from the Koran do you have? I have met people who have claimed Hindu predictions, Christian predictions, and psychic predictions coming true. The achilles heel of all these prediction is that they are very vague just like horoscopes.

Anyway, you admit that God is here for some non-design reason because no designer made him. If a designer is not required for God's existence, then why should a designer be necessarily required for our existence?

I wasn't talking about nature selection, but I said every action requires something that stimulates it, wether it's natural selection, or a organism or anything moving. Going to the bottom in the timeline you will find that it is logicaly required to have something or someone who can stimulate an action, but is not in itself stimulated by one. So for me, it requires that there is a creator who creates but isn't created. So for me it is required to have God to maintain that balance that we find everywhere else it's illogical.

The problem with the first cause argument is that it attacks its own premise. The premise is that everything has a cause. So going back in time there must be a first cause. The problem is, if the first cause is causeless, that contradicts the premise that every action has a cause.

A more rational conclusion would be that causality is not universal. So some things in this world happen without a cause or are causeless. That is actually part of quantum mechanics although it is disputed.

I already gave my opinion about that, and it's to serve God's wisdom and what seem to most that it contradicts that God is omniscient, and he knows that this salamander won't be using his eyes so why did he created them anyways, I find it a lesson of wisdom as I already said. Of course there is more things that can be related too, and you can find much more convincing examples that would support your opinion, but still ill find an explanation that don't contradicts that God is omniscient... And some things happen for no reason like why God chose our human body shape like that and not the other way, God says not everyone will be led to his path, only those who seeks it will get led by it. And that's perfect correct for me, because God is the greatest, and it's humans who should seek him and not the other way around.

I don't see how making salamanders with covered up eyes serves God's wisdom. It would have been wiser to not give the salamander eyes at all.

Yes I can, and you still didn't answer me about if you ever had that urge to have a spiritual side of things? Every human have feelings and emotions, and I beleive there is a spiritual side for every human.

For me, what people call the spiritual, I call the emotional. It is not surprising that you cited feelings and emotions when talking about the spiritual. For me, merely having an emotional side of life is enough. I do not need to mix it in with mythological or theological concepts.

Ah im trying to remember biology now been a while:faint:
Well a first idea I wanted to say is that, humans dont know everything yet, and things that might seem not useful, could be proved later to be useful and of course there are many examples to this idea.
Not sure if this is quite related to the subject, but as I know God created deseases and viruses and he can send them to any nation and provoke death or suffery to anyone who deserves it. But In your post I didn't see if those pseudogenes are responsible for anything negative on the human body after they are inherited?
God made logic in everything we create and that's to benefit human beings, because without that logic we wouldn't be able to cure ourselves, or understand our bodies etc... Was there a possible logic way for this pseudogene to not be inherited to humans ? and another question, is the presence or the abscence of this pseudogene have same effect on humans ? Or the abscence of it would have launched new benefitial potentials ?

If this topic is too technical I will abandon it if you want.

For background each of us have DNA which is a string of nucleotides (A, T, G, C). Nucleotides are like the letters in our genetic language. So your DNA may looks something like this: GTTAGCCTATTC...... A gene is a clump of nucleotides and codes into a protein. So it may look something like this: ATTACCTGA and stops, and then another gene is coded.

Genes are turned into proteins when RNA makes a copy of our genes, takes it into a ribosome (protein builder), and translates our genes into protein language. Proteins are made up of a string of amino acids (protein language) that gets clumped together. There are about 20 amino acids that we use, and each group of three nucleotides of mRNA (a copy of the DNA) is coded into a single amino acid.

Different triplets of mRNA nucleotides will often code for the same amino acid. So for example Glutamic acid is an amino acid that coded by the TAG, GCA, or CTA triplets (I am making these triplets up). The protein is then used to do something in the body.

Some genes code into proteins however others do not and do not directly build part of the body. However some non-coding genes affect how other coding genes are expressed so they are not completely worthless.

What is funny about this hemoglobin pseudogene is that its very genetic makeup is made to code for hemoglobin, yet it has a few variations that keep it from even being genetically expressed. Even if this gene has a non-coding function, it is extremely improbably that it would look almost exactly the same as a coding gene that codes for a protein involved with hemoglobin.

 

[camanintx]

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Douglas Adams

:clap

This was my first response but again, I'm a day late.

 

[Landerage]

So when something bad happened to you that was because of God? Or was it because of the natural consequences of your misdeeds?

bad things that happen to me happens with approval from God, because everything that happens is in God's approval, but doesn't mean that God made them. So for example, if a human being did a sin, this sin was comitted with God's approval, so God accepted that sin but it wasn't in his will, but the human had the will to commit the sin.

I don't think we have physical embodiments for values. You won't see the honesty protein any time soon. Our morals result from our emotions and our thoughts. Emotions are the things that are physically embodied. We do not completely understand thoughts yet. We do know that thoughts have something strongly to do with brain activity.

It's ok I dont think you will understand my point in this, so I will drop it

I don't think we should start with the assumption that God exists. Doing so is not rational.

What evidence from the Koran do you have? I have met people who have claimed Hindu predictions, Christian predictions, and psychic predictions coming true. The achilles heel of all these prediction is that they are very vague just like horoscopes.

Anyway, you admit that God is here for some non-design reason because no designer made him. If a designer is not required for God's existence, then why should a designer be necessarily required for our existence?

Your correct, the first assumption is that we exist, without this hypothesis we can't do anything, but then comes the question "why we exist", and it comes for me that it's to worship God.
Well in the Qaur'an there are many prooves, but it's not a science book that tells you things in numbers and so. The Quaur'an pointed to the lowest region on earth, which is near the dead sea in surat Al-Roum (the romans) I posted that here but many said it cannot be considered as proof but gave no explanation to why not.
-The earth that have cracks in surat Al-Tarek, which implies to that the earth isn't a whole piece
-the repetition of words related to land and words related to water in the Qur'an if you count them in percentage, you'll find that they match their actual percentage on earth.
And many other miracles that u can find all over the web
Many great predictions can also be found in the Hadith of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) : tall buildings will be constructed, people who used to farm and raise sheeps will be very wealthy in the arabian lands and that's what countries of the arabian Gulf showed us, by being rich when oil was discovered while they were mostly farmers before, the number of people greately increased, people talking to their wrists and shoes (maybe cellphones)... and some predictions that still didn't happen such as: a mountain of gold will be discovered in the river of Furat in Iraq, and the sun will change it's rising orientation, a talking animal (maybe happening with genetical engineering in the future), the descent of Jesus...

The problem with the first cause argument is that it attacks its own premise. The premise is that everything has a cause. So going back in time there must be a first cause. The problem is, if the first cause is causeless, that contradicts the premise that every action has a cause.

A more rational conclusion would be that causality is not universal. So some things in this world happen without a cause or are causeless. That is actually part of quantum mechanics although it is disputed.

I don't see how making salamanders with covered up eyes serves God's wisdom. It would have been wiser to not give the salamander eyes at all.

The answer to spirituality cannot be answered in science, or how developed humans are atm.. but in fact it's wether a human being wants that his sins be forgived and wants to go to heaven or he prefer to have a good life and spend his life doing useless things and live with the moment. Here's God asking in the Qur'an to all who wants heaven, and forgiveness to worship him, and pray a few times a day which take 30 min per day, and to get close to him and feel his mercy. And I dont think personaly, that anyone have an excuse to refuse such an offer even if a physical proof cannot be shown. Faith comes from the soul and not with prooves

For me, what people call the spiritual, I call the emotional. It is not surprising that you cited feelings and emotions when talking about the spiritual. For me, merely having an emotional side of life is enough. I do not need to mix it in with mythological or theological concepts.

Well religion doesn't just talk to your mind, but also to your heart... If I didn't have the feelings I felt when I get close to God my faith would have been gone from a long time.. After I based myself on science facts and see what goes with religion and what doesn't, and found no significant contradictions then it was for a more emotional side that made my faith stronger.. Many people when they pray they cry, because deep inside they know how little they are in this world and sense God's presence with their feelings.. You seem like the person who don't like to blend emotions with science or feelings with facts, but a human being doens't combine all that for no reason and that's a great wisdom right there!

If this topic is too technical I will abandon it if you want.

For background each of us have DNA which is a string of nucleotides (A, T, G, C). Nucleotides are like the letters in our genetic language. So your DNA may looks something like this: GTTAGCCTATTC...... A gene is a clump of nucleotides and codes into a protein. So it may look something like this: ATTACCTGA and stops, and then another gene is coded.

Genes are turned into proteins when RNA makes a copy of our genes, takes it into a ribosome (protein builder), and translates our genes into protein language. Proteins are made up of a string of amino acids (protein language) that gets clumped together. There are about 20 amino acids that we use, and each group of three nucleotides of mRNA (a copy of the DNA) is coded into a single amino acid.

Different triplets of mRNA nucleotides will often code for the same amino acid. So for example Glutamic acid is an amino acid that coded by the TAG, GCA, or CTA triplets (I am making these triplets up). The protein is then used to do something in the body.

Some genes code into proteins however others do not and do not directly build part of the body. However some non-coding genes affect how other coding genes are expressed so they are not completely worthless.

What is funny about this hemoglobin pseudogene is that its very genetic makeup is made to code for hemoglobin, yet it has a few variations that keep it from even being genetically expressed. Even if this gene has a non-coding function, it is extremely improbably that it would look almost exactly the same as a coding gene that codes for a protein involved with hemoglobin.

Thx for the informations
It's kinda technical, but still I wasn't answered if the inheritence could have been made in a logic way without pseudogenes being inherited? Well since those genes aren't completely worthless not sure why you named them "mistakes", a mistake for me is what leads to corruption in the life form, such as disabled humans, or those who have special needs but I did explain what God said about those kind of people.. But what I really want to ask, is this whole system for it to exist , should have existed on the first living cell, which nobody knows how it came.. Well all this tricky stuff is coded like if a human writes a computer program, I dont know how a human mind refuse to admit there is a coder/creator/God or anything you want to call it, and lays it all on natural selection, coincidences, mutations... Nobody have an excuse to not admit of God/creator/anything 's presence, it will never contradicts science. And as I saw a few days ago on TV that many things vital to evolution progression were made by coincidences, unfortunately I don't remember the technical names but as I leanred that coincidences play a "vital" role, and not just a low level role, in mainting life in forms that results from evolution.

 

[outhouse]

still waiting for a shred of creation evidence

 

[McBell]

still waiting for a shred of creation evidence

I sincerely hope you are not holing your breath.

 

[Dan4reason]

bad things that happen to me happens with approval from God, because everything that happens is in God's approval, but doesn't mean that God made them. So for example, if a human being did a sin, this sin was comitted with God's approval, so God accepted that sin but it wasn't in his will, but the human had the will to commit the sin.

I see, so God does not always do bad things to you when you sin, he just lets them happen to you. Does that include bad things that are unlucky (e.g. you find someone scraped your car with a key)?

Well in the Qaur'an there are many prooves, but it's not a science book that tells you things in numbers and so. The Quaur'an pointed to the lowest region on earth, which is near the dead sea in surat Al-Roum (the romans) I posted that here but many said it cannot be considered as proof but gave no explanation to why not.

The lowest point on earth is the Mariana Trench in the Pacific ocean.

-The earth that have cracks in surat Al-Tarek, which implies to that the earth isn't a whole piece

Where does it say that in the Koran?

-the repetition of words related to land and words related to water in the Qur'an if you count them in percentage, you'll find that they match their actual percentage on earth.

My uncle said that 666 stands for the United States Dollar. Notice that each word had six letters. This sort of conspiracy theory reasoning makes more sense in movies such as the Da Vinchi Code and National Treasure than in real life.

There is evidence that Nero was the anti-Christ: the Greek spelling, "Nerōn Kaisar", transliterates into Aramaic as "נרון קסר", nrwn qsr. The Aramaic spelling is attested in a scroll from Murabba'at dated to "the second year of emperor Nero."
We find each of the letters has a value (e.g. o has the value 60). Adding them up, you get 666.

The pope wears the letters Vicarius Filii Dei. Using gematria, these letters add up to 666. Muhammed's name also comes to 666 using gematria.

It doesn't seem as if deriving miracles from generating weird algorithms works very well. A real prophecy is direct not indirect. If Muhammed said the percent of the earth's surface that is land is 70.8%, that would count. This strange word counting algorithm is just too indirect.
Resh (&#1512Samekh (&#1505Qoph (&#1511Nun (&#1504Vav (&#1493Resh (&#1512Nun (&#1504Sum2006010050620050666
Resh (&#1512Samekh (&#1505Qoph (&#1511Nun (&#1504Vav (&#1493Resh (&#1512Nun (&#1504Sum
Resh (&#1512Samekh (&#1505Qoph (&#1511Nun (&#1504Vav (&#1493Resh (&#1512Nun (&#1504Sum2006010050620050666

And many other miracles that u can find all over the web
Many great predictions can also be found in the Hadith of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) : tall buildings will be constructed,

Tall buildings are always being constructed throughout the millenia, so prophecy would have come true even if it was a guess. Plus it can count as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Arabs saw that prophecy, so they fulfilled it themselves.

Not much of a prophecy. Far too vague. If the Koran has given the exact names of the some tall buildings, or their heights, or their appearances, that would have been better.

people who used to farm and raise sheeps will be very wealthy in the arabian lands and that's what countries of the arabian Gulf showed us, by being rich when oil was discovered while they were mostly farmers before,

Actually farmers and sheep herders in the middle east are still pretty poor. The oil people got rich though.

The answer to spirituality cannot be answered in science, or how developed humans are atm.. but in fact it's wether a human being wants that his sins be forgived and wants to go to heaven or he prefer to have a good life and spend his life doing useless things and live with the moment. Here's God asking in the Qur'an to all who wants heaven, and forgiveness to worship him, and pray a few times a day which take 30 min per day, and to get close to him and feel his mercy. And I dont think personaly, that anyone have an excuse to refuse such an offer even if a physical proof cannot be shown. Faith comes from the soul and not with prooves

There is an excuse to refuse such an offer. If you don't believe in Islam, then you probably won't be praying to a God you don't believe in.

Actually faith has very much to do with proof. Faith is another word for trust.

Trust is always earned, never given. ~ R. Wiliams

Faith comes when a source proves itself credible. You just don't give faith to the Koran. The Koran must earn that faith.

Well religion doesn't just talk to your mind, but also to your heart... If I didn't have the feelings I felt when I get close to God my faith would have been gone from a long time.. After I based myself on science facts and see what goes with religion and what doesn't, and found no significant contradictions then it was for a more emotional side that made my faith stronger.. Many people when they pray they cry, because deep inside they know how little they are in this world and sense God's presence with their feelings.. You seem like the person who don't like to blend emotions with science or feelings with facts, but a human being doens't combine all that for no reason and that's a great wisdom right there!

The reason people feel strong emotions to god is that God is a simulation. People are simulating God in their minds and emotionally interacting with this simulation. Christians have the same experience you do, yet their religion is false. Remember that emotions are only emotions, and are not supernatural. The fact that you feel a specific emotion does not mean its supernatural. It only means you are emotionally reacting to a specific kind of simulated experience.

Thx for the informations
It's kinda technical, but still I wasn't answered if the inheritence could have been made in a logic way without pseudogenes being inherited? Well since those genes aren't completely worthless not sure why you named them "mistakes", a mistake for me is what leads to corruption in the life form, such as disabled humans, or those who have special needs but I did explain what God said about those kind of people.. But what I really want to ask, is this whole system for it to exist , should have existed on the first living cell, which nobody knows how it came.. Well all this tricky stuff is coded like if a human writes a computer program, I dont know how a human mind refuse to admit there is a coder/creator/God or anything you want to call it, and lays it all on natural selection, coincidences, mutations... Nobody have an excuse to not admit of God/creator/anything 's presence, it will never contradicts science. And as I saw a few days ago on TV that many things vital to evolution progression were made by coincidences, unfortunately I don't remember the technical names but as I leanred that coincidences play a "vital" role, and not just a low level role, in mainting life in forms that results from evolution.

Evolution is anything but coincidence, because it is directed by natural selection. The path of evolution is not based on chance but on a selective process. Today's life forms did not come about through intelligent design, or natural chance, it came about through natural design.

Whether something is a mistake or not depends on its purpose. Lets say I make a keyboard with complex circuits in order to type with. I make a slight mistake so it looses its function. But that does mean it looses all function. I can still use it to hammer nails. So what happened to that hemeoglobin pseudogene was a mistake that took away its original coding function. However, evolution can give this gene another function.

It is not likely that humans and apes would share this exact pseudogene with the exact mistakes (in the context of creating hemoglobin) without inheriting this gene from a common ancestor. Else you will have to postulate that humans and the other primates were sepearately created and had the same mutations at the same location after that creation. The odds against this happening is astronomical.

Here is an article with more details on this pseudogene.
The Changing Face of Pseudogenes