Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason out the evidence from reality.

When your evidence is nothing more than falsified "quotes", appeals to supernaturalism and creationist nonsense, you should first make an effort to understand what a defendable argument consists of.

Wrong hollie, the last question I asked you is simple and this is important for anyone to know, it will help in your decision.

This question is a known fact and can't be spun. But evolutionist do spin and I will tell you how they spin just attempt an answer. It is a little more effective learning in this fashion as you go.

If you don't know the answer don't worry I will answer it and we can go from there.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The same thing happens to both plant and animals.

 

[Hollie]

Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason out the evidence from reality.

When your evidence is nothing more than falsified "quotes", appeals to supernaturalism and creationist nonsense, you should first make an effort to understand what a defendable argument consists of.

Wrong hollie, the last question I asked you is simple and this is important for anyone to know, it will help in your decision.

This question is a known fact and can't be spun. But evolutionist do spin and I will tell you how they spin just attempt an answer. It is a little more effective learning in this fashion as you go.

If you don't know the answer don't worry I will answer it and we can go from there.

Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya will leave you with nothing but falsified "quotes".

Your real contention is anyone pointing out that the various bibles are fallible and contain gross errors. Since it is you insisting that the bibles are the words of the Gods, and are not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Fundies understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly creationist arguments that are lies and false "qoutes" intended only to vilify science. The really laughable part of creationist appesls to gawds is that they always require the fundie to be ignorant of their bibles and science to believe them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When your evidence is nothing more than falsified "quotes", appeals to supernaturalism and creationist nonsense, you should first make an effort to understand what a defendable argument consists of.

Wrong hollie, the last question I asked you is simple and this is important for anyone to know, it will help in your decision.

This question is a known fact and can't be spun. But evolutionist do spin and I will tell you how they spin just attempt an answer. It is a little more effective learning in this fashion as you go.

If you don't know the answer don't worry I will answer it and we can go from there.

Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya will leave you with nothing but falsified "quotes".

Your real contention is anyone pointing out that the various bibles are fallible and contain gross errors. Since it is you insisting that the bibles are the words of the Gods, and are not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Fundies understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly creationist arguments that are lies and false "qoutes" intended only to vilify science. The really laughable part of creationist appesls to gawds is that they always require the fundie to be ignorant of their bibles and science to believe them.

The answer has nothing to do with the bible this is scientific fact,and it has gone through the scientific method.

Here is the answer. once the limit of variation is met or exceeded,that genetic line becomes sterile and dies out. Evolutionist don't want you to know there are limits to variations.

This has been confirmed by biologists,ranchers,farmers,and any kind of genetic breeder.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This was confirmed through selective breeding I don't think we need to discuss the chance of being able to go beyond these limits in any other sort of breeding.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong hollie, the last question I asked you is simple and this is important for anyone to know, it will help in your decision.

This question is a known fact and can't be spun. But evolutionist do spin and I will tell you how they spin just attempt an answer. It is a little more effective learning in this fashion as you go.

If you don't know the answer don't worry I will answer it and we can go from there.

Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya will leave you with nothing but falsified "quotes".

Your real contention is anyone pointing out that the various bibles are fallible and contain gross errors. Since it is you insisting that the bibles are the words of the Gods, and are not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Fundies understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly creationist arguments that are lies and false "qoutes" intended only to vilify science. The really laughable part of creationist appesls to gawds is that they always require the fundie to be ignorant of their bibles and science to believe them.

The answer has nothing to do with the bible this is scientific fact,and it has gone through the scientific method.

Here is the answer. once the limit of variation is met or exceeded,that genetic line becomes sterile and dies out. Evolutionist don't want you to know there are limits to variations.

This has been confirmed by biologists,ranchers,farmers,and any kind of genetic breeder.

Of course. There are more players in the global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionist than just scientists. You have identified other co-conspirators.

The conspiracy has taken on global proportions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya will leave you with nothing but falsified "quotes".

Your real contention is anyone pointing out that the various bibles are fallible and contain gross errors. Since it is you insisting that the bibles are the words of the Gods, and are not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Fundies understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly creationist arguments that are lies and false "qoutes" intended only to vilify science. The really laughable part of creationist appesls to gawds is that they always require the fundie to be ignorant of their bibles and science to believe them.

The answer has nothing to do with the bible this is scientific fact,and it has gone through the scientific method.

Here is the answer. once the limit of variation is met or exceeded,that genetic line becomes sterile and dies out. Evolutionist don't want you to know there are limits to variations.

This has been confirmed by biologists,ranchers,farmers,and any kind of genetic breeder.

Of course. There are more players in the global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionist than just scientists. You have identified other co-conspirators.

The conspiracy has taken on global proportions.

Now try this on for size.

Bacteria in just every couple of hours a new generation is born. In flies every 9 days a new generation is born. With the higher mutation rate and the countless generations of both why do they not evolve ?

In Humans about every 20 years a new generation is born. Yet humans being far more complex in a very few generations compared to bacteria and flies they were able to evolve from their supposed nearest ancestor.

Can you see the problem with the theory ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.

 

[Hollie]

The answer has nothing to do with the bible this is scientific fact,and it has gone through the scientific method.

Here is the answer. once the limit of variation is met or exceeded,that genetic line becomes sterile and dies out. Evolutionist don't want you to know there are limits to variations.

This has been confirmed by biologists,ranchers,farmers,and any kind of genetic breeder.

Of course. There are more players in the global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionist than just scientists. You have identified other co-conspirators.

The conspiracy has taken on global proportions.

Now try this on for size.

Bacteria in just every couple of hours a new generation is born. In flies every 9 days a new generation is born. With the higher mutation rate and the countless generations of both why do they not evolve ?

In Humans about every 20 years a new generation is born. Yet humans being far more complex in a very few generations compared to bacteria and flies they were able to evolve from their supposed nearest ancestor.

Can you see the problem with the theory ?

I can see the problems caused by christian fundamentalism.

 

[Hollie]

The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.

And Harun Yahya knows his facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are their limits to genetic variation Hollie ? I already gave you the answer.

You need faith to believe this theory and even go against scientific evidence to think this theory is even viable. Now if you want to believe in a fairytale just believe this theory.

We have not even discussed origins of life. Atheistic evolution and naturalism is dead on arrival unless you are a person of faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.

Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.

Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.

Trust me. I don't trust you.

I have seen your "evidence" and I have spent more than a minor amount of time researching your "evidence". It is invariably cut and pasted from fundamentalist Christian websites, ICR and other such charlatans, or Harun Yahya.

It's been explained to you more times than I can count: Christian creationism is smoke and mirrors for fundamentalist christianity. It is not science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.

Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.

Trust me. I don't trust you.

I have seen your "evidence" and I have spent more than a minor amount of time researching your "evidence". It is invariably cut and pasted from fundamentalist Christian websites, ICR and other such charlatans, or Harun Yahya.

It's been explained to you more times than I can count: Christian creationism is smoke and mirrors for fundamentalist christianity. It is not science.

Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.

 

[Hollie]

The more complexity of the organism the lower the rate for variations that is another known fact.

Have you considered that syntax such as yours - appropriate only for a 10 year old - suggests that your "science" descriptions are less than credible?

These "known facts" are suspiciously absent a source. Let me guess, the ICR, AIG?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie if you would like to discuss what I just presented I am open to it. I would love an explanation from your side on these issues.

Trust me I am not your buddy Harun Yahya. Just a guy that can rationally look at the real evidence and change my previous views because of the evidence.

Trust me. I don't trust you.

I have seen your "evidence" and I have spent more than a minor amount of time researching your "evidence". It is invariably cut and pasted from fundamentalist Christian websites, ICR and other such charlatans, or Harun Yahya.

It's been explained to you more times than I can count: Christian creationism is smoke and mirrors for fundamentalist christianity. It is not science.

Hollie that is not true but believe as you wish.

It's exactly true.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

This is why fundamentalist christianity, behind the smokescreen of ID, has repeatedly been denied representation in the public school system.

 

[Boss]

Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists. I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra. Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one. This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?" His response was, "yes." Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.

First of all, try to comprehend, the OP argument says nothing about a "deity" of any kind. God is used as a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually connect to. Next, think about the wind... it's there, you can feel it there, you can see the effects of it, but you can't see it. Of course, this is where Dorito pops in to interject how we can "see" wind with special machines we built to do that and stuff, but you get the point, right? Some things aren't visible to the naked eye, so is the case with spiritual nature, and it also can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. It's still there. We can't see a thought... again, Dorito will challenge that we can use a special machine to see at thought happening, but before we created a machine, we couldn't physically confirm thoughts existed. Who's to say, we won't one day have a machine that "sees" spiritual nature?

Prayers DO work, if they didn't, people wouldn't bother praying. Now you present an example comparing a prayer for a parking space to people who are starving to death. But your viewpoint is prejudiced by your humanism. Because you are a spiritual human being, you have compassion for other humans and living things, you don't want to see suffering, and it makes no sense to you how any "god" could allow such a thing to happen without answering their prayers. The thing is, if God intervened to right all injustices, and rid us from all suffering and anguish, would we have any concept of those things? If God eliminated all bad, how would we interpret good and bad? Good and less good? The spiritual nature doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't have compassion like spiritual humans, that's a human attribute we're given by the Creator, through our spiritual connection. Perhaps God is weighing on your heart, since you thought about these starving people, and expects you to do something to help? God gave you a conscience, compassion, the ability to see that people are suffering and the ability to do something about that. Instead, you choose to sit here and mock God, make fun of people who believe in God, and pretend that the starving people are God's responsibility, even though you don't believe God exists.

Just more of the unsupported claims to gawds that Boss rattles on with.

Sorry, Boss but appeals to “prayers do work” is a fool’s errand, because it relies completely on supernatural interventions-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory.

Well, we've already covered this, several pages back, amidst the mounds of religious arguing you keep baiting YWC into. Nothing about spirituality is supernatural. For something to qualify as "supernatural" it has to be outside of nature, and spirituality has been part of human nature for as long as humans have existed. Also, I can find nothing in the Science book that says certain things are off limits to science. In fact, I find an awful lot of things in the old History book, to indicate Science has often tackled what was previously thought to be supernatural. (Ball lightning, for example.)

Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Belief in “prayer ” is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

Again, ball lightning... they aren't sure what's happening there. The phenomenon happens, people report it and see it happen, but it has been problematic to test repeatedly in a lab environment. Much of what science has speculated about ball lightning, is faith. Science thinks it knows, but nothing is conclusive. The same can be said for cross-genus evolution. There is no repeatable test to prove this theory, it has never been reproduced in a lab by any science. There are transitional fossils which science uses to make the claim, but it's still a theory largely based on faith. Are ball lightning and cross-genus speciation "supernatural" phenomenon? You can't test and repeat, or describe the process by which they operate, so they must be, according to you. How about black holes, anti-matter, dark energy? Where has science tested and repeated those phenomenon? Are they "supernatural" or do you have faith that science will one day find an answer? How about this "silly" theory of a contracting universe? That hasn't been tested or demonstrated, the universe isn't contracting and never has, as far as the evidence shows. Again, this is a "faith-based" speculation. Yet, it was presented earlier as if it were some proven scientific discovery.

Here’s a simple test for “prayer”:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any appeals for "miraculous" cures. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer or hoping for “miracle cures” they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "the gods suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

You can't test prayer. It's not physical nature. Prayer relies on the prayer's faith and spiritual connection, and it doesn't always work as we 'pray' it will. Still, you raise this example because you have physical awareness that people have reported miraculous healings through prayer. These accounts are too numerous to detail here, this has been happening for ages. No physical explanations for the healings, the doctors are miffed, can't explain what happened. Your first reaction is to claim misdiagnosis, but the x-rays are there, they show a tumor exists, then the tumor is gone. Supernatural phenomenon? Or perhaps, spiritual nature intervened to direct physical nature? Or maybe ball lightning is playing tricks on the x-ray equipment? In any event, you can't physically explain it, and the people who were on their knees praying, can certainly explain it.

 

[daws101]

So case do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?

Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.

Why do you think gould recanted his own words ? You are not bright enough to understand the contradiction lol.

I could think of a few nicknames for you but then I would be stooping to your level and won't do it anymore. I just need to consider the source.

and the delusional accusations just keep coming ..gould did and has not recanted anything .

volution as Fact and Theory

by Stephen Jay Gould



irtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologist questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

 

[daws101]

"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly working…We see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages."-
Darwin

“Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend — though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just ‘know’ that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.”- Stephen jay Gould.

So explain these new traits. Where do they come from ? How do they become fixated in the population ? How is it that natural selection removes bad traits but leaves behind good traits ?

asked and answered millions of times on the creationists thread.
either you have a very bad memory or this rule applies : doing or saying the same thing over and over and expecting a difference result is the very definition of insanity.

 

[daws101]

the conspiracy spin redux..

I see. So when the conversation turns to establishment "science" and how any researcher merely mentioning the idea of creation is defunded and marginalized... THAT's just "conspiracy spin redux." Move along folks, nothing to see here but tinfoil-hat-wearing Flat Earthers...

However, when the conversation harkens back to how all the authors of the bible, spanning an entire millennia give or take, collaborated together and bullshitted their way through the whole thing to establish a system of control... well, that's just absolute "fact" ... not "conspiracy spin redux." Correct?

It's as much a fact as Hollie's absurd, false claim that all things spiritual have been "disproven."

I see you and Hollie fancy yourselves brilliant intellectuals; you feed off of each other nicely. So, why don't y'all just a get a room, and leave this discussion for the rest of us? Those of us who are here for real, honest, meaningful debate and not here to just incessantly fire off insults thinly veiled with the obligatory sprinkling of pretentious, scholarly-sounding words.

take things out of context much?