Science - How DNA Killed Evolution

Darwin's Leap of Faith...Ankerburg and Weldon.

It changes everything..

Many renowned scientists including Nobel Prize winners refute evolution but are silenced by the evolution obsessed media and wider 'scientific' community.

Nothing comes from nothing. That's science. Yet evolution ignores that and presupposes life is created (pardon?), then develops by zillions of chances and then wins the lottery despite chances of 10 to the power of 100. (Science says that aint happening..)

Science and evolution are opposite ends of a wonderful, created spectrum.

what percentage of creatures don't evolve? with the missing gaps in the fossil record can they tally it? BS alert.

it's a shame that the 1850 theories of Darwin and his Grandfather cannot stand up anymore to the DNA evidence emerging from the Gnome Projects. It was a nice "theory" - shame the evidence is flaky.

Read the book Zorro then you might learn something.

Read any book he might learn something

I refer Zorro to an earlier post

Just Checking  • September 9, 2016 4:45 PM BST 


Evolution is a no brainer, it's obviously such a valid solid fact not theory, anyone denying that .. ffs.
As to how life originated, that's a different argument. But Evolution IS FACT.

You do not even understand evolution yourself Zorro

There is plenty we don't know about life, the Universe, Everything...that is for sure
I really don't think going back to Adam and Eve is the answer

How do you think new forms of life are created? You think GODS just creates them at will and they suddenly appear
it is complete rubbish

DStyle, nice diversionary try but it won't work. We were discussing whether or not life can be proven to self-create. That's it in simple English.

The answers you have so far given amount to this: It cannot be proven to do so, has never been proven to do so and all assumptions that it might once have done so are too full of caveats to be useful.

Not one single living cell that has not been formed from a prior living cell can be found. It's all guesswork, isn't it?

it wasn't diversionary. i was explaining something to you which you didn't understand. namely what spontaneous mean "in scientific terms". you alluded to know, when you clearly did not.

there have been a few other examples in our exchanges.

this feels like i'm speaking a different language and you pretend to understand it but you don't.

perhaps if you admitted where your understanding of biological science ends (i'm afraid to it feels like GCSE level), you'd be a bit more receptive.

you asked a question, i answered it, you didn't really understand my answers and you've stuck with what you've already thought.

i'm wasting my time.

DStyle, your posts have been full of non-sequiturs to avoid the obvious answer, which is that you don't know. Maybe I don't know either but then I don't pretend to.

Your only argument is "I could explain it but you're too thick or uneducated to understand me." Admit it, man. There is no proof that life was ever produced by non-life and wishing won't make it so.

For Zorro:

The word mutation may be confusing you, a better word or words would [be i]errors in reproduction[/i]

If you were to copy a complicated pattern by eye, then copy the copy, no referring back, you may find you will end up
with something different than you started with after many copies.

Life relies on reproduction, usually from two parents, this may not happen perfectly every time, there are occasionally
errors in reproduction...
If those errors offer any kind of advantage in the struggle for survival they may be retained and in fact prosper
From this all the variety of life we see has developed, in fact it has evolved.

We don't know how life started, we don't know where DNA has come from, one reason may be there is no fossil evidence left
for us to find?

There may well be some seeming contradictions in evolution. That may be because evolution is trickier than
you think and does not always go in straight lines. Something may evolve for one reason then end up being used for something else.
ie Feathers, originally used for insulation.

Evolution occurs most frequently when there is the change in an environment this causes species to adapt or die, although it takes many
generations. Some where wet may become dry, land that was together may split up, it may get hotter ,it may get colder, etc
a change in our environment
What started us humans on our way is when giants forests started to die out, some monkeys had to come down out of the trees,

If a species can survive change without adaption, it will stay the same.

that's not the issue.

i've tried to explain some things to you gallivanter, and you've PRETENDED that you understand and then you question things which you clearly don't understand instead of saying that you don't understand.

i didn't call you thick. I merely said this is futile until you admit where you're starting from, what you don't know and what you might need to know to start to answer your question.

instead of thinking you've already got the answer.

you didn't even know what abiogenesis was yesterday or that it has nothing to do with evolution. that you still talk about "proof" shows we're a long way from getting anywhere.

there's lots of stuff out there. if you want, you can find it for yourself. you could start with Jack Szostak's book: The Origins of Life. A few a-level primers on cellular biology and basic organic chemistry would help.

but my endeavour to give you some sort of answer to the question you asked is over.

best of luck.

DStyle, I asked because I didn't know. It appears that you don't know either. We're two little lambs that have lost our way.    It's nothing to be ashamed of.

If we're finished with the origin of life, perhaps we could discuss consciousness and what it is. Any (ahem) thoughts on the subject?

How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

the horse shoe crab is the same as it was 200 million years ago. Why didn't it evolve? grow extra legs?

the spider is possibly the oldest creature on the planet? was around with the dinosaurs. before the dinosaurs... still the same creature.

crocodiles still the same, lots of creatures.

they discovered a fish they thought died out millions of years ago - a fisherman found it on a fishing trip. same as it ever was.

we evolved from fish, so shouldn't it have evolved a bit?


Why should any of them evolve ? Creatures do not evolve for the sake of it . If they are surviving perfectly well in their environment then a mutation is unlikely to benefit any individual and so unlikely to be passed on to future generations .

You may think i don't know, but I do have an understanding of where the current research is at in the area. i can read and understand papers in this field because of my education and i do. I find it interesting. In fact, i find it more than interesting. I find it troubling and awesome. It leads back to the anthropic principle, which is far more uncomfortable territory.

I consider that as an improvement on not knowing.

I'm afraid i really don't know enough about models of consciousness and research in this area to have a meaningful discussion.

I did try and read dennett's book a long time ago, but struggled.

so to recap

some animals don't ever evolve.
some animals evolve at such a rapid rate that they leave no
trace of this rapid rate change in the fossil record. ?

the DNA scientists that point out BS are all loonies and
Charles Darwin is always right.

Einstein is not always right though - his theories CAN be updated.

See - i'd call that a religious belief system - that amount of denial?

like a southern Baptist defending the bible - you 've given yourself no wiggle room.

it's this or nothing... that's called DOGMA.

i don't believe in the christian faith because of that bit in the bible that says Jesus had a horse's tail and mushrooms for hands.

see if you can work out what's wrong with that statement and then see how it might apply to some of your reasoning zorro.

Einstein is not always right though - his theories CAN be updated.

That is true Zorro, but that updating does not necessarily mean going back to the Bible and saying GOD created everything in 6 days?
Unless you really believe that of course.

Yes Darwin can be updated, if fresh evidence comes in.
At the moment evolution looks pretty solid to me, although I admit we do not know how life started or DNA was created, perhaps
we may find other contradictions.
There is also plenty of proof for evolution, can you disprove that?

If you think I am going back to Genesis, no can do

DStyle - i don't believe in the christian faith because of that bit in the bible that says Jesus had a horse's tail and mushrooms for hands.

that's bizarre I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the Bible - It's a big book maybe I missed it? I tried to google it to find it? To see the context? Not there? Is this just making stuff up like Dawkins and the Chocolate pot, Leprecauns and fairies.

define a day, if the speed of light is not a constant as we used to see it. Many physicists believe it's been slowing. At the start of the universe the stretching out.. or what looks like a big bang - an explosion... matter and everything must have been moving rather faster from the source point than it is now. Or was it just drifting?

please present the proof EbulGery.... Have you read any of Darwin's books or do you want to accept the theory because it fits a world view?

You have opinions on a theory. science has been hijacked by a theory.
I can go to any university and get a different thesis(theory) from all the student in the
physics department. A theory must align with facts. The british Library has scanned thousands of theories that languish in obscurity.

Darwinism - ism : it's a philosophy of life. it's been refuted by science in the last twenty years, but the old guard don't like to see their bread and butter go. It supports a world view of greed. Survival of the fittest. There are vested interests in the lie.
It lets men see other humans as animals. It's a degradation of human worth.

science always revises and drops spurious theories for better ones. what fits in 1750, doesn't fit in 1850, what fits in 1850(Darwin) doesn't fit in 2016. DNA refutes Darwin. There is no junk in DNA. Looking at old bones and imagining the creature without the soft tissues is guesswork. missing transitional fossils across the board? 150 years to find them seems enough time? Lots of students digging for their professors in summer?

DOGMA isn't just in religion.

no instance of evolution happening now? Richard Dawkins admits that evolution has never been seen happening in real life. It's a magic trick that can't be seen maybe... just happens behind a curtain.

DStyle, I'm quite sure you're aware of where current research is on consciousness. Has a consensus been reached?

I'm particularly interested in whether anything can be conscious if is not self-aware. I look forward to learning what current research has to say on that and also your own personal opinion. (I've dabbled a little in AI but have yet to form an opinion on the self-awareness problem.)

zorrostrikes 12 Sep 16 16:52 
DStyle - i don't believe in the christian faith because of that bit in the bible that says Jesus had a horse's tail and mushrooms for hands.

that's bizarre I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the Bible - It's a big book maybe I missed it? I tried to google it to find it? To see the context? Not there? Is this just making stuff up like Dawkins and the Chocolate pot, Leprecauns and fairies.


i saw it on a youtube video.

zorrostrikes 12 Sep 16 17:19

DOGMA isn't just in religion.


Ah, Zorro, you've hit on something. Science advances one funeral at a time.

'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

"A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a 'thought collective': a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice."

ergo it must be correct.

i don't really need to read the bible to know whether that bit is actually in there or not because i saw it on the internet so IT MUST BE TRUE.

i was watching a serial killer movie with steven Segal, as usual the serial killer was a bible nut. He read out his verses from the bible in the film just before he killed his victims... I paused the film and checked the chapters and verses the serial killer quoted... they didn't exist - it was made up. Why someone would make up quotes?

Gospel of John chapter 12 verse 85
Jesus said unto the apostles, blood sacrifice must be made upon his head and cut out his lying tongue. For verily the sinner must be spanked.

Just because they say it's a quote from the bible doesn't make it a quote, check the book please. Not a youtube blogger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTaPIK7maY&index=5&list=PLwxJpQPxRbgHJzNxY0TMXRvjg5N07Q1pZ

Biologist Exposes Lie of "Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution" - Part 1 (5 minutes ladies)

the moth story debunked.
faking of evidence? how scientific.

-------------------

David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&list=PLwxJpQPxRbgHJzNxY0TMXRvjg5N07Q1pZ&index=4

comments show he has allegiances to a big corporation, but is he gonna get a job with the other side if he says they are talking crap.

Just because they say it's a quote from the bible doesn't make it a quote, check the book please. Not a youtube blogger.

Cambrian Explosion: bigger problem for Darwinism than ever

Suddenly.... life has new meaning to mee.... there's beauty up above....

All of a sudden lots of species appeared, without any ancestors, fully formed with fancy underpants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USBI0GSSOA

the more I dig into Darwinism.... the less I find? why is that.

check the book please. Not a youtube blogger.

BIOCHEMIST ADMITS EVOLUTION IS A LIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdi3TGd717U

Mathematics Disprove Evolution?
The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg

www.aquaticcommunity.com/cichlid/evolution.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid

Here is a good example of evolution Zorro
Cichlid fish in African Lakes

I believe in evolution more than GOD I admit

There is one example of evolution in action now

SUPERBUGS

a strain of bacteria that has become resistant to antibiotic drugs.

but the bug that is resistant is still a bug. It adapted. it did not evolve.

domestos kills 99 percent of all germs.

I can fight off the flu - it dosn't mean I evolved. My body created anti bodies and i survived. I grew stronger. Adaption isn't evolution.

If we consider evolution to be merely selective breeding then it demonstrably exists. Ask any animal breeder. Selective breeding can be either deliberate or random.

Darwin, Wallace, et al wrote of natural selection, by which they meant some creatures that were naturally selected at random would have increased fitness (to breed) and therefore would likely have more offspring with the same traits.

It's the likelihood of producing offspring that's important, not physical fitness.

selective breeding isn't an issue - the wolf to a yorkie - a dog is a dog

where's the evidence for a fish to become a man.

I can be a 90 lb weakling, and over five years bulk up and do
hours in the gym and end up looking like Swarzennegar

the two extremes look markedly different.

put the two in amber and you've got evolution? nope.

the DNA is the same.

I don't know, Zorro. Zorry about that.

These bugs have evolved Zorro...they are far tougher to kill. That is nothing to do with your own

anti bodies.

You have a point Gallivanter.

Greyhounds do not exist naturally in the wild, neither do Huskies or lots of other breeds of dogs.
Thy have been bred by us. That is an example of evolution controlled by us, instead of nature.

Mermaids Zorro..that is more a fish to a women
Seriously all life came from the sea.

We cannot do weight training for our DNA zorro.....Arnie will still have the same DNA he was born with.

Perhaps evolutionary theory as we know it is not the answer Zorro. I was taught it at school.

The problem is life as we know it now has not always existed, so where has it come from?
It cannot just spring into existence because that would contradict the physical laws of reality.
The only other explanation is that life is being created somewhere.....we have not found this.

One problem with evolution is that it takes a long time, many generations.

While not agreeing with Zorro's "it was God what done it" stance it does appear that Standard Evolutionary Theory and it's offspring is coming under pressure.

Reasoned arguments from Casey Luskin: The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution. It's quite lengthy and most of it is far too technical for me but still an interesting read.

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Mathematics Disprove Evolution?
The probability of spontaneous generation (creation vs. evolution)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YinrToIKJtg

most people who believe in Darwinism... have never read or investigated it.

the man on the street takes it on faith or on it's reputation. Like buying a branded tee-shirt.

a life unexamined isn't a life.

A lot if not most who go along to a church do the same. Have they read their bible. Do they investigate it? No. they go by reputation and follow the leader mentality.

You have a point Charlie, and Zorro, perhaps we do need to look at evolution more closely.

Are we sure what is going on is going on.

Originally life only existed in the sea, then it came on to land, would it not have problems breathing?

there's all manner of creatures on the earth - millions of separate species of insects, a lot to be discovered. Ones that live in the water, some that can live in water and land and some that live only on land. This transitional mythical craeture that mutates is bogus.
All mutations are subtractive - a degradation of the original creature. All geneticists will tell you that. When they find a mutation that is beneficial... like cystic fibrosis sufferer's have a resistance to another disease. nobody wants cystic fibrosis to replicate and it will not become dominant. because of resistance to malaria. It's just that the mosquito pathogen doesn't want damaged red blood cells - it's a dead end.

Two arguments one supporting evolutionary theory and one outlining problems: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Charlie,

http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

i got to number 3 and didn't go any further. this is crap, written by an intelligent design promoter.

as with nearly all of this stuff, it's slaying inaccurate strawmen created from either a deliberate misunderstanding, ignorance or outdated selection of the subject matter.

thanks for the ammo.. Dstyle - http://www.discovery.org/a/24041

Chemical Evolution is Dead in the Water

Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a "primordial soup," or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).

Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored."14 In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water.

DStyle
Must admit that I didn't like the early questions he raised but I though the later ones more interesting. He is a Christian but appears to be well respected in the Scientific community.

what a christian with a brain?

except they don't.

that's the whole point.

haven't you got it yet.

they make stuff up that isn't true, or is outdated, or misrepresent it and pass it of as the current boundary of research, or the impediments.

WHEN IT JUST ISN'T. didn't you get the point i was making earlier.

firstly the area of interest isn't peptide bond formation. it's glycosidic linkage or phosphodiester linkage.

there are good explanations backed up by research. in fact nucleotides spontaneoulsy polymerise in frozen water. Montmorillonite also catalyses nucleotide polymerisation.

(that was for zorro charlie)

Casey Luskin hasn't published a single paper in a peer reviewed journal.

and he's an advocate for intelligent design.

and he writes crap like that.

he is NOT well respected.

this primordial pool theory needs an atmosphere with no oxygen to start, then once it starts it needs an atmosphere with oxygen?

the DNA comes with Meta information that informs what constructs the protein to fold that protein in various ways? how does that happen? like oragami?

The Miller-Urey experiment was 60 years ago.

It's like talking about the problems with noxious gas emissions of cars, and only using cars from the 50s as your evidence.

I've posted a link to the most current research earlier in this thread from Sutherland's lab at the MRC Molecular Biology lab at Cambridge.

but what's the fecking point.

RESPECT surely comes with being right in SCIENCE ? or is the most handsome man
got the best theories. Maybe if you sell more books you get more respect in SCIENCE.

Facts - isn't science about facts... I forget, because whenever I watch Horizon they use a lot of 'IF' 'Maybe' ' perhaps' and lots of theories that drift in and out of favour.

DSytle
How could you!
Luskin is a scientific illiterate who doesn’t actually understand anything remotely biological, from genetics to embryology to molecular biology to, now, paleontology. Actually, this isn’t the first time Luskin has tripped over himself in a rush to deny — he also didn’t like Tiktaalik. So this is just more of the same.. Myers.

Looking at Richard Dawkins on youtube - He's pro Alien

but Anti God. Fascinating.

does he believe in crop circles and chocolate pot aliens.

You want to pick a hole in the God Delusion - chapters on the anthropic principle
Hitchens admitted the biggest problem when defending atheism - anthropic principle.
Fred Hoyle - anthropic principle - that's just for nucleosynthesis ffs.

I don't dream of holding a candle to these gentlemen, but I read papers on abiogenesis and I'm awestruck by the how such a seemingly rudimentary set of constants could lead to this. again the anthropic principle.

If there is one place your creator is hiding, it's here.

But as i said earlier, this creator is probably most likely just running a simulation on a supercomputer.

I think we could do with some Horizon programs on this myself.
They are pop science but that is all some of us can understand.

We must encourage people to think, Science has given us a physically comfortable World
and can give us more. Not that that is everything, I think we can become too greedy myself,
But the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of truth is a good thing

Surely there is a desire in people just to know?

Not about evolution, but I was impressed by the proposed scheme to send a spacecraft weighing  1 gram to the Proxima Centauri
star system, to investigate a planet Proxima b, it could be earth like?

We will probably send a fleet of them, they will use a solar sail, lasers will propel them to 1/4 the speed of light.
They could reach it in 20 years, 4 years for the signal to get back.

They reckon it cost £10 billion dollars, but I hope we do it. Although I doubt I will still be alive.

But as i said earlier, this creator is probably most likely just running a simulation on a supercomputer.
that could be, would explain a lot dstyle. But we make be able to work it out?

abiogenesis
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.?

Under attack from creationists, Zorro most of all

not only does the simulation argument deal neatly put to bed the anthropic principle, it also explains all sorts of funny things about the effect of observation in quantum mechanics.

it makes perfect programmatic sense to only render and resolve structure when it's needed, i.e. observed.

not only does the simulation argument deal neatly put to bed the anthropic principle, it also explains all sorts of funny things about the effect of observation in quantum mechanics.

it makes perfect programmatic sense to only render and resolve structure when it's needed, i.e. observed.

it makes perfect programmatic sense to only render and resolve structure when it's needed, i.e. observed.

SNAP!...that occurred to me Dstyle

i am living in a material world, and i am a material girl...

yet i cannot see the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth,
eleventh and twelth  dimensions that scientist's tell us exist?

i see a fraction of the visible spectrum.

Einstein said we know less than one percent of everything?
I think Richard Dawkins thinks he knows it all though.


Please do not mix modern space craft technology to Darwinism? unless they are sending his carcass into space. It's spurious re-enforcement. They sent a bible up in Apollo 11?

Please do not mix modern space craft technology to Darwinism?

They are mixed Zorro. We are looking for life. Why do we investigate Mars, it may have had liquid water at some time,
we want to see if we can find any evidence of life

How do we life started on Earth?

know

1918 - Balfour declaration - Britain accepts there should be a Jewish state.
1948 - Israeli nation re-established
1967 - Jerusalem recaptured after a war - previously not in Jewish state.
2016 - the Sanhedrin reformed (#good caiaphas. the council waits for you# )
the Sanhedrin has appointed a high priest to offer sacrifices in a third temple?
first Sanhedrin since 70AD when the second temple was destroyed. Wow - that's nearly 2000 years  - so what else might show up after 2000 years?

I was waiting for something to happen in Israel this year - seems weak? every 49 years is a jubilee year in the Jewish religion. 1918.1967.2016.

I doubt the Palestinians Arabs share your enthusiasm Zorro

the year of jubilee. it is the final time of the shemitah which ends on October 2-4

Especially for you Zorro it's only 20 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Q43OHVK10

Palestinians suck air - Everybody dies with evolution. everybody. even the Palestinians.

you can live to 150 but you die.

Jesus redeems those that want to be with God.

God isn't asking for anything but his due. As the creator.

ignoring him isn't a pass.

zorrostrikes  • September 12, 2016 9:54 PM BST 
Palestinians suck air - Everybody dies with evolution. everybody. even the Palestinians.

hey Charlie - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

nobody gets saved with evolution? the star goes nova and not a trace lives on. Then all the surrounding stars too?

ebulGery, if water (or ice) is found on Mars, would that be evidence that life once existed there? If so, how did that life come into being?

Charlie -

BTK strangler is not a christian, he is deranged.

listing off faults of men linked to christianity is spurious

there's some good people too, Mother Teresa.

Christ says you do not get to heaven because you live a good life,
it's not a points card you fill in.

Religious christians have done bloody murder in christ's name.

Christ said - live by the sword die by the sword.
George Bush enlisted Christ in his attack on the arab world.
he never turned the other cheek...

We would still have the abiogenesis problem Gallivanter, I agree, but it may help solve that

ebulGery 12 Sep 16 21:30 

Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.?

Under attack from creationists,

Surely it's not just under attack from Creationists? It's too vague to be taken seriously by anyone.

Then we are back to square one Gallivanter.

We need someone with ideas in this area.

ebulGery 12 Sep 16 22:09 
We would still have the abiogenesis problem Gallivanter, I agree, but it may help solve that

In what way?

I have no idea, but it may help, who knows?

ebulGery 12 Sep 16 22:12 
Then we are back to square one Gallivanter.

We need someone with ideas in this area.

You won't find one on here, EG. I know. I've looked!

if it ain't real -  if i can't feel it it's not real...

where's the proof of intangible things...

12 dimensions?
exotic particles that vanish in a millionth of a micro second?
other universes?
Aliens? a lot of Darwinists like aliens - Richard Dawkins a big alien fan.

Christ says you do not get to heaven because you live a good life,
it's not a points card you fill in.

That is disappointing Zorro, I think doing genuine good things is the best bit about Christianity

Socrates a bit before Christ, believed we should do good to benefit our immortal soul. I like that as well

You won't find one on here, EG. I know. I've looked! Happy

the man entertains thoughts of Aliens... But not God, coz that's ridiculous.

where's the proof of intangible things...

Sometimes we have to find the theory before the proof. Einstein had no proof for his theories,

but they have been confirmed since. The technology was not there at the time Zorro.

DNA evidence is pointing away from Darwin?

Maths points away from Darwin. too. 1+1

An interesting debate

I don't take anything personal Zorro

i'm armed to the teeth.... Its so personal....

launching missiles at your location, revealed by IP analyzer as I type.

tracking down one godless darwinist at a time?

message brought to you by the betfair ministry. (£10 free bet for believers)

i might be wrong? take a look... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHAc3_MEjgQ