The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.

I thank Con for his spirited defense of the greatest nation in the World". The imagination. It is interesting to debate with a soul who has the courage of his convictions, however wrong those convictions are. It is beyond question that despite Cons rhetoric, he continues to not address the topic itself? I present human kind, a being of sentience beyond all other creatures as described in Scriptures. Con presents us with spider webs, 5x strong than steel? And that has to do with the topic HOW? ". How many of you have walked through spider webs other than a brief grossing out, you continued through it without slightest pause ". By Cons reasoning that alone should allow man to call himself superman " yes? Nonsense. That Con does not think the question is beyond first base, is equal to how his science operates, that is Cons modus operandi is it not " SCIENCE? The strength of a spiders web to the average human is consider 5x stronger than steel? I don"t think so, IF it were 5x stronger than steel, YOUR NOT walking through it are you? Why the artful dodging (a clever or dishonest trick done in order to avoid something)? Could it be it is because he cannot present any species which IS capable of the levels of Mankind, and that IT PROVES Man IS exactly what God said ". UNIQUE in the World! That would also indicate that Man"s level of self-awareness very much indicates the presence of a living soul, Why? Because you don"t need science to tell you, that you are you. You decide, where to walk, when to run, how to live, what to eat? That IS YOU in control, and THAT part of you continues after death, sorry went of topic! Why the AGAIN immediate departure from the topic. MAN and his creator? Con resorts to the familiar and nothing more. At the onset, Con gave away his position " he believes whatever science TELLS him to believe, despite mountains of true evidence against such preposterous positions that remain obvious to any person of intellect and reason. Con would have you BELIEVE that life evolved"period. Con doesn"t WANT you to think about the how, science said it and that is that!". Well for those of you not lead about by whatever science claims " YOU answer it then, HOW could life evolve from infancy, and SURVIVE to adulthood, it"s a very simple but extremely important point don"t you think? Could any newborn do that NOW, no? Then how did they accomplish it back then? But no one knows huh? That"s gonna HAVE to be his response. I know ". God created all life, not as infants as adults thereby BEGINNING all life, it is the ONLY REASONABLE solution to the problem! Can the excuses-Cut the ties-Count on Gods power! Many of you remain under condemnation because you"ve allowed yourselves to be deceived. Don"t blame anyone else, the person responsible you can find by simply looking in the mirror. The Good News is that you don"t have to continue in ignorance. You can change that right Now, by a simple choice, go on believing what SCIENCE wants you to believe or START searching for God yourself " science is NOT going to do it for you. They have closed their minds completely, they are the masters of all they survey " till they come before their creator! Course by then it will BE TO LATE! Rats, I got off topic AGAIN " my apologies ". Con would have you believe his science which says you came from a newborn ape ".. who miraculously grew to adulthood to start the gene pool without so much as a morsel of food or drink or protection, and not ONLY SURVIVED but actually GREW to adulthood. I proclaim before all present that Con capitulates by his own admission, we were born IN EDEN! http://www.livescience.com... Hear this and BE WARNED! Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious " the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe " can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science. Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries" . end-quote. AS science said " . "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," What a pantload! Notice THEY aren't saying HOW millions of infants survived to adulthood without food, water protection ... like Con .... that query doesn't get past first base! Therefore THEY DON'T have to answer it! One begins to questions Mans intelligence altogether when we behave in a manner we only require of our dogs ... sit, fetch, leave it, take it .... Believe IT! Yep, you got it here first people ". Earth EVOLVED, FORGET and IGNORE HOW helpless newborns, without benefit of food, water or protection grew to adulthood. Science says it and that's it! God help you all. Those who close their mind shall have the most unpleasant privilege of JOINING Sean Carroll, in a place that was not original created for the souls of men! But exists, none the less. I"m sorry off topic again! By the way ... NO species comes level to the DNA of Humans. All Humans DA is 0.1 different from every other Human, that means we are 99.9% carriers of the same DNA, no other creatures come to that level. https://www.genome.gov... "All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of diseases." http://chemguide.co.uk... "This page takes a very brief look at what happens if the code in DNA becomes changed in some way, and the effect that would have on the proteins it codes for. Random changes to the genetic code Copying errors when DNA replicates or is transcribed into RNA can cause changes in the sequence of bases which makes up the genetic code. Radiation and some chemicals can also cause changes. The examples which follow show some of the easier-to-understand effects of this. A gene will be made up of a string of these codes rather like a string of 3-letter words in a sentence. We'll use that as a simple analogy. Take the sentence: the big fox bit the dog but not the boy Suppose one letter got changed in this by accident. Suppose, for example, the "d" in dog got replaced by a "p". The sentence would now read: the big fox bit the pog but not the boy Clearly this doesn't make complete sense any more. Would that matter if the same thing happened in a gene? It depends! If you look back at the table, there are several amino acids which are coded for by more than one base combination. For example, glycine (Gly) is coded for by GGT, GGC, GGA and GGG. It doesn't matter what the last base is - you would get glycine whatever base followed the initial GG. That means that a mutation at the end of a codon like this wouldn't make any difference to the protein chain which would eventually form. These are known as silent mutations. Inserting or deleting bases The situation is more dramatic if extra bases are inserted into the code, or some bases are deleted from the code. Using our example sentence from above, and keeping the three letter word structure: If you insert a single extra base: the big fro xbi tth edo gbu tno tth ebo y An extra "r" is inserted in "fox". If the sentence still has to be read three letters at a time (as in DNA), everything from then on becomes completely meaningless. If you delete a single base: the big fxb itt hed ogb utn ott heb oy This time the "o" in "fox" has been deleted. And again, because we have to read the letters in groups of three, the rest of the sentence becomes completely wrecked. So does this matter? Well, of course it does! Large chunks of the protein will consist of completely wrong amino acid residues. We've looked so far at inserting or deleting one base. What if you do it for more than one? The effect is the same unless you add or delete multiples of three bases - without changing any other codons. If you added an extra three bases between two existing codons, then essentially you are just adding an extra word. the big fox bit the xjy dog but not the boy That extra word represents an extra codon in the DNA, and so an extra amino acid residue in the protein chain. Does this matter? It depends where it is in the chain (Is it important to the active site of an enzyme, for example?), and whether it affects the folding of the chain. What if the three bases were inserted so that they broke up an existing codon? Here is the same extra "word", "xjy", dropped in the word "bit". Everything is then reshuffled into groups of three letters. the big fox bxj yit the dog but not the boy You can see that the effect is again fairly limited. It will change one codon completely, and introduce an extra codon. That would give you one different amino acid and one extra amino acid in the chain. Again, how much that would affect the final protein depends on where it happens in the chain." its very interesting I recommend reading the whole thing... its fascinating.