Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Derideo_Te]

, you must evaluate the overwhelming spiritual evidence
.

The term "Definitive Proof" completely excludes phony "spiritual evidence" of any sort whatsoever.

Nope. Again, this is explained in the first two paragraphs of the OP. Maybe you should read it again? We must first define the terms, and if you reject spiritual evidence, you can never find definitive proof of a spiritual entity. If you only recognize physical existence, you can never comprehend spiritual existence, the term is of no use to you.

Your futile attempts to "redefine" the terms to suit your religious agenda are going nowhere.

Definitive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Definition of DEFINITIVE

1
: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation <a definitive victory>
2
: authoritative and apparently exhaustive <a definitive edition>
3
a : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws>

NOTHING that you have posted is "definitive".

Proof - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of PROOF

1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2
obsolete : experience
3
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4
archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5
: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

You have provided no proof or evidence whatsoever.

Instead you attempt to weasel and squirm around your own canards by trying to invent your own personal "meanings" to universally accepted definitions. By doing this endlessly YOU now resemble Humpty Dumpty.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Have a nice day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Ok here is another problem with the experiment. Miller and Urey Hypothesized that the environment did not contain raw oxygen How did they know what the environment was like that long ago ? the reason why they included an oxygen free environment was because they knew these molecules could not form with the presence of raw oxygen.

You're also ignoring the fact that it does not happen naturally in nature and this was done through intelligent human beings. You're also ignoring the presence of both amino acids being present and how would only left handed amino acids bond in the right sequence to produce proteins.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A "conclusion" is not defined as having the attribute of certainty, so your ridicule and strawman have no basis in truth. Saying science doesn't make conclusions because science isn't certain, is simply a semantics error on your part.

As far as the strawman, despite your misunderstaning of the meaning of "conclusion", Quote me where I said that scientific epistemology deals with certainty. Until then, try not to ridicule people when you are the imbecile making then mistake.

Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: con·clu·sion
Pronunciation: \k&#601;n-&#712;klü-zh&#601;n\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conclusion-, conclusio, from concludere
Date: 14th century
1 a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises ; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism 2 : the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law 3 : an act or instance of concluding



Do you see "certainty" or a synonym anywhere in this definition?




I dont. You're clueless as to what you are doing here.



As to your statement being valid or profound... thanks for the laughs.

Science does not conclude or "conclude."

I deserve better than you.

Steps of the Scientific Method

"The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results"



I am going to walk away now and hope you don't follow me.

A conclusion does not mean you interpreted the evidence accurately.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Ok here is another problem with the experiment. Miller and Urey Hypothesized that the environment did not contain raw oxygen How did they know what the environment was like that long ago ? the reason why they included an oxygen free environment was because they knew these molecules could not form with the presence of raw oxygen.

You're also ignoring the fact that it does not happen naturally in nature and this was done through intelligent human beings. You're also ignoring the presence of both amino acids being present and how would only left handed amino acids bond in the right sequence to produce proteins.

They knew what the early atmosphere was like because scientists are not stupid and can figure things out. The early Earth was very volcanic and the lava spewed into the atmosphere would trap some of the atmosphere as a result. These ancient lava rocks can be dated and the oldest ones were analyzed for what the atmosphere was like at the time, and they found there was no free oxygen. Gases produced were similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane). No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases).

 

[edthecynic]

you've just proven my point.

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

A virus is neither a living nor nonliving organism. I contains properties of both, for example a living organism can reproduce itself and a virus cannot. It is a transition organism between living and nonliving organisms. You know the transition organism that dishonest creationists say doesn't exist. So to be a creationist you have to believe a virus does not exist.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Exactly, every living organism is made of molecules that form naturally on Earth, there are no "designer" molecules in any living organism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Ok here is another problem with the experiment. Miller and Urey Hypothesized that the environment did not contain raw oxygen How did they know what the environment was like that long ago ? the reason why they included an oxygen free environment was because they knew these molecules could not form with the presence of raw oxygen.

You're also ignoring the fact that it does not happen naturally in nature and this was done through intelligent human beings. You're also ignoring the presence of both amino acids being present and how would only left handed amino acids bond in the right sequence to produce proteins.

They knew what the early atmosphere was like because scientists are not stupid and can figure things out. The early Earth was very volcanic and the lava spewed into the atmosphere would trap some of the atmosphere as a result. These ancient lava rocks can be dated and the oldest ones were analyzed for what the atmosphere was like at the time, and they found there was no free oxygen. Gases produced were similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane). No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases).

They know what the early atmosphere was like because they are not stupid what the heck kind of response was that lol ? no one said they were stupid but it is just speculation that is all it is. They can't prove what the atmosphere was like billions of years ago. But you to missed the point the tests were done from the standpoint of intelligence not natural happenings.

I did not touch on the many things that was not produced in the tests like molecular machines and DNA. Talk about requiring faith to believe such a fairytale.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

A virus is neither a living nor nonliving organism. I contains properties of both, for example a living organism can reproduce itself and a virus cannot. It is a transition organism between living and nonliving organisms. You know the transition organism that dishonest creationists say doesn't exist. So to be a creationist you have to believe a virus does not exist.

Viruses can reproduce themselves they just need a host organism to inject their DNA in to. That is merely conjecture suggesting a virus is a transitional organism. A virus is not a living organism at anytime. I am a creationist and viruses exist no doubt you are making a dishonest claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Exactly, every living organism is made of molecules that form naturally on Earth, there are no "designer" molecules in any living organism.

If you were the least bit honest you would admit how I shot holes in your belief of the Miller and Urey experiment and they were not small holes they were huge gaping holes.

 

[daws101]

you've just proven my point.

I'm sorry, was your point that Evolution Theory does not address origin? If so, you are correct!

There is nothing in Evolution Theory to adequately explain cross-genus speciation. This HAD to have happened, if evolution is responsible for all living things. However, it is something we can't even do in a controlled lab environment with modern equipment and technology.

The only science theory regarding origin of life, is Abiogenesis. The theory that electrically charged chemical elements in the moisture found in clay, achieved reproductive replication, and thus, all life began from a single cell. I find this fascinating, since The Bible claims god spat into the dust to create man. Not arguing theology, just saying.

nice, but overly wordy and unnecessary rant ...I need no science lessons from non scientists.

to answer the question Ywc has never been correct or accurate in science based discussions about evolution or origin ....how could he be .
he believes the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 years old

 

[daws101]

If you were accurate they could answer the origins question. They have not been able to show a mechanism for Macro-evolution that is above reproach.

bullshit! there is no special mechanism for the false premise of macro evolution. evolution is evolution period.

Macro-evolution is specious speculation...and it's highly reproachable.to say it isn't is arrogant and ignorant, but hey look who always brings it up!

Sorry you don't understand the difference between Micro and Macro. Let me help Micro are small changes within a species Macro leads to different species like you see on the family tree according to evolutionists.

we've had this argument on the other thread, it was shit then and it's shit now and way off topic .

 

[Youwerecreated]

The problem is the miller and urey experiment did not produce a cell nor a living organism and a bigger problem they produced both left and right handed amino amino acids Life would not have come from both amino acids. Right handed amino acids could not bond or it would destroy the organism.

Also the experiment was conducted by intelligent human beings so much for naturalism. They can never point to a case where life was produced through a natural means. Non-living matter cannot produce a living organism only a living organism can produce a living organism with the ingredients that it takes to produce a living organism.

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Exactly, every living organism is made of molecules that form naturally on Earth, there are no "designer" molecules in any living organism.

One more thing about viruses they are produced within a living organism not in the natural environment So I ask you what was your point ?

 

[daws101]

you've just proven my point.

More spiritual evidence.

Episode 67 - Full Episode: My Ghost Story Full Episodes and Videos - Biography.com

bahahahahahahahahahahaha!
you did know that show is not fact based and is for entertainment only.
most all of the "ghost" footage has been doctored and "enhanced" all of the EVP'S are too.
that alone destroys any value the "evidence might have had.
again you've proven my point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! there is no special mechanism for the false premise of macro evolution. evolution is evolution period.

Macro-evolution is specious speculation...and it's highly reproachable.to say it isn't is arrogant and ignorant, but hey look who always brings it up!

Sorry you don't understand the difference between Micro and Macro. Let me help Micro are small changes within a species Macro leads to different species like you see on the family tree according to evolutionists.

we've had this argument on the other thread, it was shit then and it's shit now and way off topic .

And to think you still don't get it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you've just proven my point.

More spiritual evidence.

Episode 67 - Full Episode: My Ghost Story Full Episodes and Videos - Biography.com

bahahahahahahahahahahaha!
you did know that show is not fact based and is for entertainment only.
most all of the "ghost" footage has been doctored and "enhanced" all of the EVP'S are too.
that alone destroys any value the "evidence might have had.
again you've proven my point.

All forms of science are entertainment to some.

 

[daws101]

Would you like to compare reume's again monkey boy ?

that's resume' and do you really want to have your ass handed to you again!

You don't possess a degree in science dummy but I do. Why do you continue with this Charade you moron ?

no, I hold three degrees and science is a major part of them.



ah ha charade you are, Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
When you're down in the pig mine.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Bus stop rat bag, ha ha charade you are.
You fucked up old hag, ha ha charade you are.
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass.
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost worth a quick grin.
You like the feel of steel,
You're hot stuff with a hatpin,
And good fun with a hand gun.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Hey you, Whitehouse,
Ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse,
Ha ha charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street.
You're nearly a real treat,
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
.....! .....! .....! .....!
You gotta stem the evil tide,
And keep it all on the inside.
Mary you're nearly a treat,
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry.

 

[daws101]

One thing is for sure. No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind. I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power, and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise. And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.

aye and there's the rub!

 

[daws101]

There is no strawman, newbs.. just my valid and profound statement, which you agreed with as you did a little jig. I love it when I say something that you have no choice but to agree with, yet you have to find some way to not agree. Loved how you put cute little quote marks around "conclusions" to distinguish them from things which are concluded. That was precious!

what? your statement's only validity is that it's yours.. nothing more.
profound ??! like a fart in a crowded elevator is profound.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One thing is for sure. No one on here is gonna change anybody's mind. I've had experiences that convince me there is a higher power, and no atheist who has never had a spiritual experience (or even said a prayer) will convince me otherwise. And I'm sure I won't convince them of anything either.

As an Atheist I will defend your right to believe in that "higher power". Will you defend my right to not have your belief imposed on me?

 

[daws101]

The experiment wasn't designed to produce a cell or a living organism, so its not a problem at all.

Your second point is incorrect. An intelligence created and mimicked the natural conditions that actually existed, and the molecules formed on their own, as they would have naturally. The scientists didn't personally configure each molecule into place- THAT would be intelligent design.

Exactly, every living organism is made of molecules that form naturally on Earth, there are no "designer" molecules in any living organism.

One more thing about viruses they are produced within a living organism not in the natural environment So I ask you what was your point ?

so living organisms are NOT part the natural environment?
that statement wreaks of ignorance and pseudoscience.