It's too bad you did not truly engage with the article; now I will have to quote from it in reply to you. Fortunately, this makes my task easier, but I would prefer an engaging conversation.
Read the source: http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_interventiontheory.htm

Actually, I see that you have just contradicted yourself. If you don't use "God" to explain the common ancestor, then what explanation is left? After a century of heavily subsidized efforts to create even the most basic rudiments of life in a laboratory, scientists are still batting zero. As Dawson noted, “here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”

Funny. You think you know what God is thinking? I would say that God is indifferent to your human opinion and is not concerned with your intellectual imagination. By the way, God's Law is written on your heart, so you are never without guidance. Please do not bring the Bible into this; I don't believe in authority other than self.

2) Plant and Animal life forms are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. If life evolved as Darwinists claim, it would have to bridge the gaping chasm between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely countless times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science again bats zero. The animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant.

3) “It is this gap [between any species of animal or plant and any other species], and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.” Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

And this statement by Morgan is by no means an exceptional disclosure.

For someone who denies something that is backed with so much evidence, on first impression, you seem open minded. But that has to be a pure superficial attitude. In the end, it's all about authority of the Bible. You wouldn't risk your reputation by defending what you are defending if you had not a religious agenda. You are afraid that recognizing the Bible is wrong will put in question all the rest it states.

1) There is no contradiction. I dismissed the argument that because we still ignore the exact way how life was created we have to accept that it was God. We are very close to it. I can accept the argument on the Big Bang and specially on the creation of the multiverse where the Big Bang was formed. We still have no clue on the beginning of all. But your "it was God" also says nothing about what created God.

But as I wrote, the creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. Is no argument against it. God could be the creator of the first life and left then things to evolution. Insisting on it make you an illogical person and there is no use to keep arguing with you if this is truth.

[It isn't important to the issue of evolution your point on understanding God. But I still say it's absurd to wait 13800 million of years for something believers say God could created in 6 days. The universe wasn't created in 6 days, the Bible is wrong. But God is too important to you, for you to give up him. I only expect you to accept evolution, because denying make you look ridiculous and affects your credibility defending God].

2) The differences between plants and animals are not that big. They are both based on the same system of DNA. We know they have common ancestors, the first cells.

3) Human history? Do you want a complete change of a species in 5000 years to accept evolution? That is absurd. Anyway, the dog is different enough from the wolf to serve as an example. Technically, they are still the same species, since they can still interbreed. But dogs have several genetic differences from wolfs. Evolution made that. The principle is backed during human history from dogs: species evolve, they were not created as they are. Once you accept this principle, the rest of your arguments are irrelevant.

You can't ignore all the evidence that says chimps and humans have a common ancestor. We have evidence from fossils and genes. Modern humans have genes from neanderthals and denisovans (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131204-human-fossil-dna-spain-denisovan-cave/). You can't deny that they existed and were very different from us. Moreover, genetic evidence and fossils confirm that they evolved during about 2 million years since the Homo Erectus. They interbred with us and made us different. We don't have gene evidence about older ascendents, like the Homo Habilis, but we have many fossils that confirm we are related, because show a slow change toward us. Anyway, genes show we have a common ancestor with apes and that is enough to confirm evolution.

If you don't accept this evidence that we have a common ancestor with apes, I have nothing more to write about this with you, because you couldn't be arguing in good faith.

But if you accept this, this destroy any argument against evolution. The rest are details. If one accepts that we evolve from something that was similar to a ape, of course, accepting that vegetables and animals have a common ancestor is almost trivial.

I end here my participation about evolution, because if I couldn't convince you, clearly, I won't be able to do it, because you really don't want to accept the evidence and will deny what is evident for anyone with even a not very open mind but in good faith. At least you have to recognize there are strong evidence in favor of evolution and your position is to say the least very risky to your reputation.


But I have nothing against you, you look like a fine person. You are just in a denying state on this issue.

I will keep it brief, maybe just one point at a time...

I accept that there are shared genes, but there is no single documented instance of the transformation of one species into another, as stated by Thomas Hunt Morgan and others. Therefore, the evidence of common genes is not sufficient to conclude that all life has a common ancestor, since the evidence does not even allow for the shared ancestry between any two species. This conclusion has simply not been validated "in the field", and it is not warranted given the lack of an example; despite their best efforts, scientists are NOT close to simulating abiogenesis, despite what you may believe, and since there has not been a single example of species transformation in human history, science bats zero on this point.


Since the conclusion of common descent promoted by neo-Darwinism has not been validated with an example of the transformation of one species into another, I can only say that you would like us to think that any argument against neo-Darwinism is destroyed and "the rest are details" because then your conclusion cannot be falsified with inconvenient details such as missing evidence (i.e. knowledge gaps) and the like. There is an alternative. What about the arguments of Pye; what about his Intervention Theory? What about the details that simply don't add up, like with domesticated plants, as detailed in the Pye article linked below:

I don't think it is rational to conclude that we evolved from apes since there is not an unquestioned example of the transformation of one species into another (any species). There is only shared genes, but that could point to something else; see Pye's essay previously and this other essay from Pye:
http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html

I disagree with both neo-Darwinism and creationism; I know that the Bible is tampered.
I think it is important to recognize that despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species. In science, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that an example be presented before accepting the conclusion. I am not expecting you to provide such an example, because it does not exist, so if you end your participation here then you end it having not provided the sort of evidence that I am seeking (in good faith, of course). I don't think it's fair that I have to restate the arguments of Pye for your digestion when you can read his articles and see the evidence for yourself; perhaps then you will see that I am not actually denying anything. Why not have a look at the Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention? Please have an open mind and read these two articles thoroughly before replying to me; I appreciate it!

Since you arbitrarily exclude or ignore scientific evidence, asking only for documented evidence on evolution (but indeed there is at least one case, I have to change what I wrote: dogs are indeed a different species from wolfs, they can interbreed, but their offspring are sterile), that show there are not only shared genes, but genetic evolution, since we have genetic samples from about 400,000 years ago from homo antecessor in Atapuerca, Spain, then lot of samples from Homo neanderthalensis and a few from homo denisovanian, all pointing to relations of ascendency and evolution between them (and then admixture with us), confirmed also on fossils, I'm confirming the end of my participation on this issue on evolution.

I might answer you on the soul issue later, but I have no hopes. If you reject clear cases like this one, there is little point in debating more subjective issues. I will always call religious someone who believe in god and the soul.

Scientifically proof that God exists and there are many examples some are. A person is born he will definitely die one day and nothing can stop him from dying when his times come the other examples are the sun, moon, stars, oceans, mountains, lava's and others they are not made by humans.

yeah he is real

People always need something to blame 
God is reality for those people.

God is there, and omniscient
imagine who is the creator of our life?
and how can the universe and all its contents be organized and organized?
I am sure it belongs to God

God may not be present but i think we should keep believing in God; it is right to be in fear to the supreme power the man had over them; it would give us ment