Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No... a theory once proven is a fact.
Proof requires repeating a process to a same result over and over and over.
So far in our history, everything about God and origins is theory - nothing is proven in religion because nothing is repeatable.
All discussions of origins requires faith on all sides. The question a Monkey must ask is, "What is the evidence that supports my faith?"
Once you have determined a theory is proven fact, you begin practicing faith and stop practicing science. Proof does not require anything other than faith and belief. So far in our history, there is no physical evidence of a spiritual god.
Science does not determine theories are proven fact, it remains constantly open to possibility, regardless of probabilities. When you assume science has concluded, you are wrong. You are actually adopting a faith-based belief that science has concluded something. Even something so physically absolute as gravity, is not "proven fact" by science. There is still the remote possibility that gravity will not behave according to prediction.
Proof and evidence is subjective, always. Science does not determine what constitutes proof or evidence, this is a determination humans make as a result of faith in science. As I pointed out in the OP, some people are not capable of understanding spiritual proof, which like scientific proof, requires faith.
"Spiritual proof"?
Once you have determined a theory is proven fact, you begin practicing faith and stop practicing science. Proof does not require anything other than faith and belief. So far in our history, there is no physical evidence of a spiritual god.
Science does not determine theories are proven fact, it remains constantly open to possibility, regardless of probabilities. When you assume science has concluded, you are wrong. You are actually adopting a faith-based belief that science has concluded something. Even something so physically absolute as gravity, is not "proven fact" by science. There is still the remote possibility that gravity will not behave according to prediction.
Proof and evidence is subjective, always. Science does not determine what constitutes proof or evidence, this is a determination humans make as a result of faith in science. As I pointed out in the OP, some people are not capable of understanding spiritual proof, which like scientific proof, requires faith.
"Spiritual proof"?
Laugh all you like, it is the nucleus of the argument stated in the OP, and this thread now has over 10k views. As of yet, no one has refuted my points. You've only managed to confirm the most fundamental point of the argument, that if you don't evaluate or acknowledge spiritual evidence, the question can't be resolved for you. As we see, the question remains unresolved for you, because you have not proven that god doesn't exist.
Only if God is energy and not a spirit, disproving your OP.Then god can't be created. Problem solved!
Thank you, problem solved!
God is a spirit that can materialize and as spirit possesses power. For anyone who believes in the God of the bible he is pretty well described as having power and no limitations.
Mat 19:26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding hath he stretched out the heavens.
Psa 62:11 God hath spoken once, Twice have I heard this, That power belongeth unto God.
Psa 66:7 He ruleth by his might for ever; His eyes observe the nations: Let not the rebellious exalt themselves. Selah.
Psa 79:11 Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee: According to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to death;
Job 26:14 Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: And how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?
Job 9:4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: Who hath hardened himself against him, and prospered? -
1Co 6:14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up as through his power.
2Co 13:4 for he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him through the power of God toward you.
2Co 6:7 in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
Psa 136:12 With a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm; For his lovingkindness endureth for ever:
Isa 26:4 Trust ye in Jehovah for ever; for in Jehovah, even Jehovah, is an everlasting rock.
Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might.
Zep 3:17 Jehovah thy God is in the midst of thee, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing.
Hey dumbass, he meant FREE Oxygen.There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
If there was no oxygen, there couldn't have been water. It is part oxygen.
Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in water solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.
Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.
You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.Just before the Big Bang, all the energy of the universe was compressed into a single point. At that point time did not exist as time exists only in terms of motion. When that energy went bang, time began.What do you mean by "already existing energy?" Where did it exist if there was no physical universe to exist in?
Also, there is nothing about Creationism OR Evolution which demands a designer be designed. This is a fabricated assumption, made by ass clowns who want to continue to reject the possibility of intelligent design, because they hate Jebus.
If time did not exist before the universe, nothing else could have existed, except the force which created the universe. This force did not "come into existence" because there was no "exist" before the universe existed, there was no time and space to exist in.
Complexity is the rationalization Creationists use to require a creator claiming the complex cannot come from the simple. Higher more complex forms of life cannot evolve from simpler forms of life, therefore the creator must be more complex than his or her creation or the whole argument for a creator falls apart. Since anything complex requires a creator, the complexity of a creator requires a creator or yet again the argument for a creator falls apart.
Again you are wrong, energy always existed before the Big Bang and will continue to exist after the Big Crunch, only time began at the Big Bang.
First of all, I think your assumptions about what the Creationists believe is inaccurate. The argument of 'irreducible complexity' is actually a part of Darwin theory. But this is applied to physical things within the physical universe, not god. God is the energy which existed before the physical universe and will exist after it, but god doesn't reside in the physical universe. You adamantly claim the energy which created the universe, always existed, wasn't created... but somehow, you can't apply that to god?
Contradict yourself much?
You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.
Once you have determined a theory is proven fact, you begin practicing faith and stop practicing science. Proof does not require anything other than faith and belief. So far in our history, there is no physical evidence of a spiritual god.
Science does not determine theories are proven fact, it remains constantly open to possibility, regardless of probabilities. When you assume science has concluded, you are wrong. You are actually adopting a faith-based belief that science has concluded something. Even something so physically absolute as gravity, is not "proven fact" by science. There is still the remote possibility that gravity will not behave according to prediction.
Proof and evidence is subjective, always. Science does not determine what constitutes proof or evidence, this is a determination humans make as a result of faith in science. As I pointed out in the OP, some people are not capable of understanding spiritual proof, which like scientific proof, requires faith.
"Spiritual proof"?
Laugh all you like, it is the nucleus of the argument stated in the OP, and this thread now has over 10k views. As of yet, no one has refuted my points. You've only managed to confirm the most fundamental point of the argument, that if you don't evaluate or acknowledge spiritual evidence, the question can't be resolved for you. As we see, the question remains unresolved for you, because you have not proven that god doesn't exist.
WYGD? "If there is a God of this world and He loves us; I should not like to be Him, as the suffering that is its history would surely break my heart."
-Penniless European Philosopher, circa 1800's
"Spiritual proof"?
Laugh all you like, it is the nucleus of the argument stated in the OP, and this thread now has over 10k views. As of yet, no one has refuted my points. You've only managed to confirm the most fundamental point of the argument, that if you don't evaluate or acknowledge spiritual evidence, the question can't be resolved for you. As we see, the question remains unresolved for you, because you have not proven that god doesn't exist.
Can you prove Santa Claus doesn't exist?
There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
Yet you can't pull yourself away from this topic.
There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
Yet you can't pull yourself away from this topic.
I'm always looking to see if anyone has any real proof of a god, and what their arguments might be, because I find the subject interesting. Is that ok?
There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
If there was no oxygen, there couldn't have been water. It is part oxygen.
Plenty of chemicals can form bonds in water solutions. Your mindless insistence that they had to be "formed whole" is ridiculous. You have no understanding of the planetary conditions present 4 billion years ago.
Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.
Again, if there is no oxygen present, there can be no water.
Free oxygen was scarce as the element was bound into various compounds such as CO2 and H2O. Photo synthesis converted CO2 and H2O into O2... the oxygen which we breathe. The chemical conversion is as follows:
or in english
carbon dioxide + water + sunlight → glucose + dioxygen
But you know that.
So oxygen most certainly DID exist on the planet.
"No oxygen was present" is a lie, correct?
Quote: Originally Posted by Derideo_Te
There was virtually no oxygen on the planet when life first formed. Oxygen was a waste product of one of the earliest forms of life.
Quote: Originally Posted byYouwerecreated
Well I have to respectfully disagree with you . Amino acids are soluble in water they would dissolve and never be able to form proteins. No a cell could not form in a body of water and they could not form where oxygen is present they would decay just like any organism that dies and is exposed to oxygen.
There's no proof of the god of the bible. Neither is there any proof about Noah, the parting of the red sea, the burning bush... It's all gibberish.
Yet you can't pull yourself away from this topic.
I'm always looking to see if anyone has any real proof of a god, and what their arguments might be, because I find the subject interesting. Is that ok?
Behe himself credits William Paley for the concept, not Darwin. And your Darwin quote is a perfect example of the dishonest quote mining of Creationist liars. Darwin went on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species. But as a know-it-all you knew that already.You are simply a pathological liar!. Irreducible Complexity was coined by Behe and is the central tenet of Intelligent Design Creationism. It is the opposite of Evolutionary Theory.
Oh, I know Behe coined the phrase, but the principle is actually part of Darwin's theory. It is not the 'opposite' of anything, because Evolution deals with species evolving, not origin. Darwin made a very detailed analytical standard for natural selection, because he realized it couldn't simply be used willy-nilly to explain anything and everything.
Here is what Darwin said regarding his theory and the human eye: to suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. He goes on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species.
Now it is on this prerequisite of natural selection, Behe makes his argument for irreducible complexity. The powers of natural selection are not predictive, they can't presume to know that a photoreceptor spot is going to need a lens, an iris and pupil, and then form it. IF evolution is this amazing, it is more of a miracle than God. The simple photoreceptor cells, which Darwin very well knew about, were thought for a long time, to be a predecessor to the modern eye, but as we've learned more about the optic nerve and chemical reactions, the more we understand the two systems are completely different. Humans do not utilize the optic nerve in the same way as something with a photoreceptor cell. The operation of the optic nerve is entirely different, but Darwin didn't know this.
So the evolution of the eye has not been shown, as Darwin previously thought. The eye is irreducibly complex, meaning; if any one component of the eye is not present, the system doesn't work. If evolution is responsible, it had to 'intelligently' compile a checklist of parts needed, and construct what we know to be an eye. There is no "simpler stage" the eye could have had, and still function at all. What we once thought to be links to primitive photovoltaic spots, turned out to be false leads, the systems are completely different and operate on a completely different principle.
Behe's argument is not to be carried as far as you rhetorically like to carry it. Natural selection can indeed produce a more complex or robust system over time, but it has to work within the confines of what is natural and within bounds of nature. It can't predict that various components will eventually be needed and start building those, so they are complete when everything else is in place. That's just not how natural selection works. If you believe that natural selection has the ability to be predictive like this, you believe in "intelligent" design.
You can't prove oxygen was not present in our early atmosphere. Name one atmosphere that doesn't contain oxygen.
Now imagine this planet if there were no atmosphere.
The Earth's Atmosphere
Maybe, maybe not,but it is certain that amino acids could not.
Your ignorance never fails to expose you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
O2 build-up in the Earth's atmosphere. Red and green lines represent the range of the estimates while time is measured in billions of years ago (Ga).
Stage 1 (3.852.45 Ga): Practically no O2 in the atmosphere.
Stage 2 (2.451.85 Ga): O2 produced, but absorbed in oceans & seabed rock.
Stage 3 (1.850.85 Ga): O2 starts to gas out of the oceans, but is absorbed by land surfaces.
Stages 4 & 5 (0.85present): O2 sinks filled and the gas accumulates.[1]
Wiki now that is a source to behold and do you understand the difference between fact and theory ?
The Moon began orbiting very near the Earth, if we could run time backwards, in 1.2 billion years the Moon would be so close to Earth that the ocean tides would completely cover the mountains . Astronomers are aware of this problem and call it the lunar crisis. This evidence says that the Earth and Moon system must be less than 1.2 billion years old. If the Moon began orbiting Earth slightly inside the Moons present orbit, its age would be much less. Obviously, something is wrong with either the law of gravity or evolutionists belief that the Earth and Moon system is 4.6 billion years old.
I would trust Gravity over evolutionists theory.
