Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Please present your scientific evidence to support this theory. Until then, you are simply making a "because I say so" argument. There is nothing any more complex about human brain structure (or function) than chimps, if you believe that is true, you need to present evidence, otherwise, you are making a "because I say so" argument.

Humans do have abstract thought, but this doesn't come from special brains that are different from all other primates. It comes from the human's ability to spiritually connect. You're free to believe in your "special brain theory" but until you can back it up with some science, it has no basis other than your word. We see no evidence of other upper primates practicing even the most primitive forms of spirituality, even though they have the same brain structure and function as humans.

The 6,000 year-old Earth thing is real old. I would say, it's probably less than 2% of Christians who ascribe to this particular belief, yet it is repeated ad nauseum by Atheists, in almost every thread where religious arguments break out. Now, I am real sorry that some people believe this, but then... some people believe humans have special brain structure.

Here are a couple of articles to support my comments. There are other, more detailed and specific materials available but these provided a good overview.

Brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently


Why Homo sapiens won the battle of human survival: Neanderthals had larger eyes but less brain power to make decisions | Mail Online

So similarly, present the peer-reviewed data that supports the evidence for your claimed supernatural spirit worlds.

Good links, thanks. I have a Neanderthal Club on my FB page, and these look interesting.

You are interesting when you play nice.

 

[daws101]

How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?

even if it were..that's no proof your fantasy is correct or the only one besides evolution.
how hard is that to comprehend?

Again, demonstrating your condescending bullshit.

It just never stops with you, but that is because you are too stupid to realize that you have lost.

it's not condescending or bullshit .
the stupidity is yours or willful ignorance. it's hard to tell with you guys.
the facts: modern dating are not for any practical purposes flawed.
there is no evidence for a young earth.
there is no proof for or against the existence of a god or thousands of them.
any theory that presupposes god is a false premise and not evidence.
faith in a god or gods is subjective and cannot and should not be argued as fact.

get it.

 

[daws101]

Is it just me or does that just scream dodge.
I just posted support, being wrong all the time seem to be a habit with you guys.
it's a simple statement of fact. there are no original copies of the bible in existence so any interpretation of the text is from many generations of copies .. yes or no?

Dude you cant even do attributions right, much less prove anything here.

You make an unwarranted assertion, which means you give no proof/reason/fact for what you assert, almost as though the more often you say it you score points and whoever has the highest score 'wins' or some stupid shit like that.

No, most of the people on this thread are here to exchange thoughts and ideas, or are curious how some people think. I disagree with the YECs here, but I do so respectfully, as I also try to do with Derido and others.

You though, have been demonstrated repeatedly to lie, twist what people say, make stupid jokes and act like you have won the video game.

You are a stupid little ass hole. Go fuck yourself.

funny how the asshandie always says that to the ass hander.
please post were I have lied or twisted anything.
curiosity is why I post here..

 

[Hollie]

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?.

Not at all. It implies that mankind wasnt capable of understanding what God was prior to that. If God exists, He would have existed entirely independently of the ability of early humanoids to believe in Him.

Sorry. That just doesn’t work. What is Jesus talking about in the salvation scenario? Belief in fairies? Belief in unicorns? Belief in rolling the point before a seven or craps?

No, he's talking specifically about salvation -- it's what his entire ministry is about, and in no uncertain terms he states that he is the way.

Have you ever thought to ask why knowledge is not asked for in the salvation scenario, unquestioning faith is. There is an underlying hatred of knowledge in the bible-- knowledge of good and evil is the original sin, after all. Before they sinned, A & E (not the cable station) were ignorant. Knowledge to god is sin-- because knowledge would preclude faith. According to the context, god prefers unquestioning belief, but will allow you to choose knowledge. The price of which is eternal hell of course. It means that religious doctrine is highly important to move masses of people to do things they normally wouldn't do. Based upon ignorance and superstition, people have done massively harmful things to one another.

If you are comfortable with your religion relying upon an underlying threat to coerce behavior, good for you. What a shame that your gawds permits the eternal condemnation of most of his children. If his concern was truly salvation, he'd change his behavior to one that really embraces salvation.

If I were "infinitely merciful" there would be no act that could possibly circumvent my infinite mercy. The comparisons to humans don’t ever work, even as an illustration, because theists insist on a perfect and ultimate and unlimited god. Infinite love and mercy should be what it is-- infinite love and mercy. Eternal damnation is a contradiction to those attributes, and there is no way to reconcile a god who establishes amorality as morality.

 

[edthecynic]

How many times must I point out the problems with the dating methods ? Believe as you wish.

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

But if a constant rate of decay supported a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth you would accept that, yes?

 

[JimBowie1958]

even if it were..that's no proof your fantasy is correct or the only one besides evolution.
how hard is that to comprehend?

Again, demonstrating your condescending bullshit.

It just never stops with you, but that is because you are too stupid to realize that you have lost.

it's not condescending or bullshit .
the stupidity is yours or willful ignorance. it's hard to tell with you guys.
the facts: modern dating are not for any practical purposes flawed.
there is no evidence for a young earth.
there is no proof for or against the existence of a god or thousands of them.
any theory that presupposes god is a false premise and not evidence.
faith in a god or gods is subjective and cannot and should not be argued as fact.

get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Dating can be flawed, and mistakes are often made that peer review fails to catch.

And there is evidence of God, but people determined to not recognize it can always come up with some hypothetical scenario to essplain things, from imaginary time to human beings just being lucky enough to win the Great Cosmic Dice Roll.

And in theology one starts with axioms or revelation as a starting point and it is no less rational than science is.

Short comings in scientific knowledge do not prove God, but the overwhelming 'fine tuned' nature of our universe make is not only plausible but highly probable.

But no doubt you can find some other essplanation that you would prefer; ANYTHING other than GAWD! Now that is irrational.

 

[RoccoR]

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

But is a constant rate of decay supported a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth you would accept that, yes?

(REFERENCE)

The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).

SOURCE: Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

[ame="http://youtu.be/YltEym9H0x4"]Richard Feynman on God[/ame]​

I agree with Dr Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JimBowie1958]

BAck to the accuracy of carbon dating, if done right it is very accurate, but a lot of things have to be done right to get good numbers, and the scientist in question has to have enough integrity to not simply lie about it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud | Science | The Guardian

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

The scandal only came to light when Prof Protsch was caught trying to sell his department's entire chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.

An inquiry later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as real ones and had plagiarised other scientists' work.

 

[Hollie]

BAck to the accuracy of carbon dating, if done right it is very accurate, but a lot of things have to be done right to get good numbers, and the scientist in question has to have enough integrity to not simply lie about it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud | Science | The Guardian

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

The scandal only came to light when Prof Protsch was caught trying to sell his department's entire chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.

An inquiry later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as real ones and had plagiarised other scientists' work.

Quite clearly, peer review is an important component in science. Science is a process of discovery that will assiduously test and challenge, there’s a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. Peer review is a process whereby asserted claims are subjected to falsifiable tests, “double blinds”, etc. Those conditions do not exist in the Theistic environment.

What is the process for peer review in connection with claims to gawds?

Regarding the fraud perpetrated by Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten:
Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

One might wonder how he got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Richard Feynman on God​

I agree with Dr Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

Meh, I think doubt is good and useful in some areas of knowledge, a waste of time in others.

Who doubts a bus schedule for instance? How do you trust it to be up to date and accurate? How do you know some prankster didn't make an erroneous duplicate and switched it out? You don't know and it isnt worth the time to investigate before stepping on to the bus. Why? Because maybe you have already found the schedule reliable, maybe you see other people that you have seen before and they are all going on the same route you have seen them board many times before, maybe maybe maybe.

Science cannot help us with this; you just follow the schedule and get on the damned bus.

The schedule is a source of information based on authority. Religion uses such authoritative claims as well, and it is not subject to testing in a laboratory. You cant put a piece of God in a test tube and see if He really is there.

The stock markets have millions of people investing in them, and do they KNOW these are good investments? Not necessarily at all. And yet it is valid to argue that investing in the stock markets is a wise thing to do. But science cant tell me if Wall Street's DJI average is going up or down tomorrow.

So scientific doubt is not appropriate when approaching many fields of knowledge and religion is one of them, though abstract reason can still be applicable and helpful. Seen through the lens of faith, the universe affirms God in a million ways, but to the person who never had that faith, none of it makes any sense.

That does not mean that a belief in God is irrational nor that those who hold this belief have never pursued their doubts. Many have had doubt and found answers that resonated with what they instinctively knew to be true and so their faith grew.

But the philosophical evidence in support of God existing and the spiritual existing is the weakest of bodies of evidence. The strongest is the affect that faith has on people, for example AA has faith in God at the very core of their therapy. Many other groups have tried to mimic AA but without God and faith and they all failed.

I see wine turned to water everyday among the former alcoholics I know and whose lives are now sober and productive and they got that way because God touched their lives, and He did so because these people asked Him to help them and He answered. I see it in all the hospitals and orphanages and universities that religion has established, though secularists have shanghaied many of them.

THAT is the real evidence.

 

[JimBowie1958]

BAck to the accuracy of carbon dating, if done right it is very accurate, but a lot of things have to be done right to get good numbers, and the scientist in question has to have enough integrity to not simply lie about it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud | Science | The Guardian

History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud

Flamboyant anthropologist falsified dating of key discoveries

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

The scandal only came to light when Prof Protsch was caught trying to sell his department's entire chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.

An inquiry later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as real ones and had plagiarised other scientists' work.

Quite clearly, peer review is an important component in science. Science is a process of discovery that will assiduously test and challenge, there’s a HUGE difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant. Peer review is a process whereby asserted claims are subjected to falsifiable tests, “double blinds”, etc. Those conditions do not exist in the Theistic environment.

What is the process for peer review in connection with claims to gawds?

Regarding the fraud perpetrated by Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten:
Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch (von Zieten) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

One might wonder how he got away with his deceptions for so long, but the important thing is that his fraud was discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record. This is how science works. Sometimes the discovery is quick as in the case of Archaeoraptor. Sometimes it is slow as in the case of Piltdown. But eventually the correction occurs.

YEs, when done right science is very reliable.

But one uses scientific methods to test scientific concepts. One uses rational religious tests for religious concepts. Science has no voice in religion any more than religious tests belong in science.

Science CANNOT affirm or test religious axioms. The discussion has to remain within the realm of theology and reason.

 

[RoccoR]

JimBowie1958, daws101, et al,

Yes, the process can be wrong. That is what science is all about.

Again, demonstrating your condescending bullshit.

It just never stops with you, but that is because you are too stupid to realize that you have lost.

it's not condescending or bullshit .
the stupidity is yours or willful ignorance. it's hard to tell with you guys.
the facts: modern dating are not for any practical purposes flawed.
there is no evidence for a young earth.
there is no proof for or against the existence of a god or thousands of them.
any theory that presupposes god is a false premise and not evidence.
faith in a god or gods is subjective and cannot and should not be argued as fact.

get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Dating can be flawed, and mistakes are often made that peer review fails to catch.

And there is evidence of God, but people determined to not recognize it can always come up with some hypothetical scenario to essplain things, from imaginary time to human beings just being lucky enough to win the Great Cosmic Dice Roll.

And in theology one starts with axioms or revelation as a starting point and it is no less rational than science is.

Short comings in scientific knowledge do not prove God, but the overwhelming 'fine tuned' nature of our universe make is not only plausible but highly probable.

But no doubt you can find some other essplanation that you would prefer; ANYTHING other than GAWD! Now that is irrational.

(COMMENT)

Actually, science really is not in the business of proving things.

Isaac Newton, guessed and deduced a mathematical description for gravity. It was held true for over 200 years until Einstein published. The orbit of Mercury didn't fit Newtons description, but Einstein's work did. It is not so much that Einstein was proven right, but that Newton was not (his work was temporarily true).

The question is sort of flawed. We shouldn't be looking for "definitive proof" of a Supreme Being. We look for true descriptions of the nature of the universe. We look for evidence and explanations that account for the observations we make. It leads us to some truth; or a step closer to a greater truth (however temporary).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boss]

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Please present your scientific evidence to support this theory. Until then, you are simply making a "because I say so" argument. There is nothing any more complex about human brain structure (or function) than chimps, if you believe that is true, you need to present evidence, otherwise, you are making a "because I say so" argument.

Humans do have abstract thought, but this doesn't come from special brains that are different from all other primates. It comes from the human's ability to spiritually connect. You're free to believe in your "special brain theory" but until you can back it up with some science, it has no basis other than your word. We see no evidence of other upper primates practicing even the most primitive forms of spirituality, even though they have the same brain structure and function as humans.

The 6,000 year-old Earth thing is real old. I would say, it's probably less than 2% of Christians who ascribe to this particular belief, yet it is repeated ad nauseum by Atheists, in almost every thread where religious arguments break out. Now, I am real sorry that some people believe this, but then... some people believe humans have special brain structure.

Here are a couple of articles to support my comments. There are other, more detailed and specific materials available but these provided a good overview.

Brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently


Why Homo sapiens won the battle of human survival: Neanderthals had larger eyes but less brain power to make decisions | Mail Online

So similarly, present the peer-reviewed data that supports the evidence for your claimed supernatural spirit worlds.

Why are you only presenting evidence to show we became more intelligently advanced than Neanderthal? I don't think there is any dispute about this, is there? You were supposed to be proving our advanced intelligence enabled abstract thought which caused us to create spirituality. I'm not seeing the peer-reviewed data on that, when is it coming?

 

[Boss]

I am skeptical on the existence of spirits, because I base most if not all of my view on objective evidence that can be discerned through the five senses. Everything you have said is not debatable is indeed debateable and will continue to be so; saying that it is not is dangerous and borders on fascism.

Even though spirits cannot be proven through the scientific method, let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is true. You are saying that spirits exist. You are opening a massive, massive door.

How many spirits are there?
Are there water spirits? Fire spirits? Light and dark spirits?
Do they have genitalia or not? Are they like the angels?
Are they able to procreate? Do they give people powers?
Can they be harnessed for energy? Can they be farmed?
What is their weight? Their size? Dimensions? Colors?
How do they exist without being seen?
Is Golden Sun based on actual events?
How do they nest? May we hunt them? What is their flavor?
Their intellect: how high? Do they know more than one language?
Are they capable of destroying our world?
Can spiritualists collect and battle them like trainers do their Pokemon?

The questions go on, ad nauseum.

I think you have tremendous belief in the notion of spirits, Boss, but I don't think you know for sure whether they exist or not. If they can be discerned through science, I would like to know, please.

If you still believe that spirits exist, why not angels and demons? Gods? Everything else?

Imagine someone else. Imagine he says and believes everything you believe and say, except that you've swapped out spirits for any other kind of supernatural being.

And back to the numbers part, just because a lot of people believe something... that doesn't mean it's true. That's just logic. Correlation isn't causation. If many people believe something, they may be right... but saying that because most people believe something then it must be right is absurd.

Well, first of all, I have no idea what you're talking about with "spirits" ...I've not mentioned these. Do you mean like aberrations and ghosts? I don't know if those exist or not, and I've not claimed they do, nor made a case for them. Spiritual nature is what I argued, and this doesn't necessarily include spirits.

Now let's be honest, you are skeptical regarding spiritual nature because it lacks physical confirmation. You can't detect it with your five senses, therefore, you assume it doesn't exist or doesn't have presence. I'll raise these questions again... Do you know which plants to pollinate? Can you coordinate billions of people to construct a colony through telepathic instructions, where each individual knows their role and does it? Bees and ants have the 'senses' to do these things and more. So are human's 5 senses all there is in the universe?

We have, what can be called, a "sixth sense" of spiritual connection. Humans are the only species with the ability to connect spiritually, and it is the secret to our success as a species. To utilize this sense, you have to first believe in spiritual nature, if you've closed your mind to the possibility, you can't make spiritual connection. If you intentionally blindfolded yourself for many years, you would lose your ability to see. Would that mean that vision is not real?

This is a contentious issue, and first and foremost I want you to know that I'm not personally attacking you nor do I have any ill-will towards you. It is the very specific notions and concepts themselves that I take issue with. You I respect; some of your arguments I criticize.

My prior response to you about spirits was because you discussed the notion of spirituality, which in itself is a very brad definition. One could think it deals in the existence of spirits. If you open the door of discussion on the notion of spirits, you open a very wide door indeed. Thus, my somewhat sarcastic criticism. Spiritualism demands that spirits exist, and so I questioned and continue to question as much as I can the assertion that spirits exist. I don't see how spiritual nature cannot include the existence of spirits: Gods, sure, but not even spirits? If spiritualism doesn't involve spirits, why even have the word "spirit" in spiritualism?

Spiritualism does not "demand" that spirits exist. It does allow the possibility of such phenomenon, and I don't know if spirits exist or not, my argument was for spiritual nature. I don't know why words are chosen to describe different things, there are various reasons, still, we don't automatically assume similar words support the same concept.

For a moment I may have confused you with Jimbowie, who in this thread states the very mind is a spirit. Looking back, I did not, but could easily have. Both of your assertions on spirits deserve more questions, with general respect.

Well I can't argue Jim's points, he will have to address this himself. I've not made a case for aberrations, which is what I am assuming you mean by "spirits" here, since you haven't defined them. I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?" I don't claim it can be seen or observed walking through the hallways after death, but I am also not saying this is impossible and cannot happen.

Your argument about ants and bees is interesting, but those creatures likely do their work due to instinct. I may be wrong, though, and that deserves as much fair research as it can get. Boss, I take comfort in what I can know. Knowledge, not belief, is the surest foundation for one to rest on. If we leave our sturdy foundation of concrete knowledge, we march on the shifting sands of subjectivity, which may very well slow us down or drag us under.

Well we certainly call these things "instinct" but I am asking you to think a little deeper than mere definition. Do bees and ants use "senses" that humans don't possess? Yes or no? To presume the only senses available in all the universe, just happens to be our five, and that's it... is refuted on our very own planet with life we know of. It's not hard to imagine there might be dozens of senses that we simply don't have, so we aren't aware of.

I cannot believe what I can't discern. This is why I don't believe in spirits, or gods, or demons, or angels, or monsters, or legends, or aliens, etc. Actually, there may do exist "alien" life, if indeed Earth is not the only life-sustaining rock in all the planets, galaxies, universes...

It is nice discussing and debating with you, Boss. You've got me in a more inquisitive mood now. ;-)

Your mind operates under the impression that physical nature is all that can exist. That your five senses, are all that are available. At the risk of sounding like a sci-fi movie, what if we discovered an alien civilization, who had the ability to communicate through some kind of mental telepathy? Would the fact that we can't relate to this, and can't fully explain it, mean that it's not possible and we have to develop some excuse to explain it away?

I cannot believe what I can't discern either, but I can discern that humans spiritually connect to something greater than self, and always have. If this were purely imaginary, there would be no evidence of tangible benefit, and the behavior would have disappeared long ago. It's not just the fact that humans connect spiritually, it's also that they get something profound out of it. You can't rationalize this without considering the possibility they are connecting to something outside the physical, which is present in our universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.


CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years?


Apologetics Press - New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

 

[Youwerecreated]

what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .

How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?

There are several dating methods that can be used to coordinate the results.

Goofy conspiracy theories aren't going to help you.

You don't get it ,all dating methods are based on the rate of decay. You also have the amount of c-14 which is based on constant rate and how much c-14 is contained in the object. Same faulty assumption that has been proven to be wrong by the University of Standford and Purdue University.

 

[hobelim]

As someone who is always open to learning about new ideas and concepts I am willing to admit to being intrigued enough to want to find out more about this. Please proceed with the lesson either in this thread or another or even via PMs if you prefer.

experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response so I am a little surprised by your response and humbled because I believe you that you are sincere.

To respond appropriately I will need a little time to formulate a coherent and concise explanation and to climb the mountain of the Lord, so to speak, where I will learn what to say and how to say it and then, when I emerge from the Holy of Holies, again so to speak, I will show it to you.



In a little while I will start a new thread, Keys to the Kingdom , so as to not take any attention away from Boss and company continuing to make complete fools of themselves here...

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss: I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?" I don't claim it can be seen or observed walking through the hallways after death, but I am also not saying this is impossible and cannot happen.

Boss: Spiritual nature exists (or is present) in our universe, just as physical nature is. Spiritual nature governs physical nature, and was the Creator of physical nature, physics, science, the five senses, light, electricity, gravity, black holes, dark energy, suns, planets, moons, atmospheres, LIFE, "reality", Big Bangs and Big Crunches, etc., etc., etc.

OP: You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

Spiritual nature governs physical nature ... I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?"


... is this a "spirit?"


assuredly so ... unlike your OP however the reverse is what has also been the allure of mankind - to see the physical proof of an Almighty to confirm the existence of their individual spirit / soul they hope may escape with their last breath.

or if the spirit of man has a physicality why would someone restrict an Almighty God from having a physical presence as well ...

Like Newton, spiritual evidence though compelling is not proof in itself of a Creator of the Universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dude you cant even do attributions right, much less prove anything here.

You make an unwarranted assertion, which means you give no proof/reason/fact for what you assert, almost as though the more often you say it you score points and whoever has the highest score 'wins' or some stupid shit like that.

No, most of the people on this thread are here to exchange thoughts and ideas, or are curious how some people think. I disagree with the YECs here, but I do so respectfully, as I also try to do with Derido and others.

You though, have been demonstrated repeatedly to lie, twist what people say, make stupid jokes and act like you have won the video game.

You are a stupid little ass hole. Go fuck yourself.

funny how the asshandie always says that to the ass hander.
please post were I have lied or twisted anything.
curiosity is why I post here..

Everyone saw our exchange plus many other times I just chose not to make you look like the fool you're and I am sure others have done the same thing as myself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

But if a constant rate of decay supported a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth you would accept that, yes?

No because it has been proven to be a faulty assumption.