Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

I never claimed they were my words....
you on the other hand are so fucking arrogant you actually believed that no one would call you on it .
show some dignity and man up !

Are you that dense we argued this in the other thread lol. Still waiting on you to show what I quoted how it was not accurate as you claimed.

I already did..

You posted nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ok ! here we go. Astrology



Astrology consists of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other planetary objects at the time of their birth. Many cultures have attached importance to astronomical events, and the Indians, Chinese, and Mayans developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations.

Among Indo-European peoples, astrology has been dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, with roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications.[1] Through most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in political and academic contexts, and was connected with other studies, such as astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[2] At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question, and subsequent controlled studies failed to confirm its predictive value. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined.[3]

Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been falsified.[4]:424 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics.[5]:249[6]


Astrology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not to be confused with Astronomy.



This article is about the scientific study of celestial objects. For other uses, see Astronomy (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Astrology, the belief system claiming that celestial phenomena influence the lives and behavior of humans.

A giant Hubble mosaic of the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant
Astronomy is a natural science that deals with the study of celestial objects (such as moons, planets, stars, nebulae, and galaxies); the physics, chemistry, mathematics, and evolution of such objects; and phenomena that originate outside the atmosphere of Earth (such as supernovae explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic background radiation). A related but distinct subject, cosmology, is concerned with studying the universe as a whole.[1]

Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Prehistoric cultures left behind astronomical artifacts such as the Egyptian monuments and Nubian monuments, and early civilizations such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky. However, the invention of the telescope was required before astronomy was able to develop into a modern science. Historically, astronomy has included disciplines as diverse as astrometry, celestial navigation, observational astronomy, and the making of calendars, but professional astronomy is nowadays often considered to be synonymous with astrophysics.[2]

During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented towards the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results, and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role, especially in the discovery and observation of transient phenomena.

Astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system which claims that human affairs are correlated with the positions of celestial objects. Although the two fields share a common origin they are now entirely distinct.[3]
Astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
anything else I can help you with bahahahahahahahahahaha!

Now show how my quote was not accurate ?

Astrology! next!

This is not what I was speaking of but correction noted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

speaking of lying, declaring that life was designed with zero proof is extremely dishonest..
the truth would be is you believe it was designed...

Only a hardened Ideologue will believe in coincidences over and over again

co·in·ci·dence

[ kō ínssidənss ]


1.chance happening: something that happens by chance in a surprising or remarkable way
2.happening without planning: the fact of happening by chance.
only a willfully ignorant asshole would preach design with no evidence of it ...sound like any body we know?

Over and over again talk about ignorance and being naive.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.
Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side.
This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
In conclusion, it is not a easy question because there are a lot of unknown details about the formation of the Moon, probably a violent impact between the Earth and an object roughly the size of Mars.

What's the closest the moon has been to the Earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Ms daws is copying and pasting like there is no tomorrow now if he quotes anything that sounds sort of intelligent better check it if he does not credit the source.

but I did credit the source .unlike yourself.. bahahahahahaha!

How many times have you not ? do I detect someone really defensive.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where else have you looked for it as thoroughly as you have looked for it here?????

Why can't you just say no there is no life out there as far as we know ?

why can't you say I have no proof there isn't life out there?

Why should I ? is there life out there ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is not easy to estimate how far away from the Earth the Moon was when it formed, but simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km. The Moon is currently about 384,000 km away from Earth or 3-4 thousand times further away than this.
The exact rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth has varied a lot over time. It depends both on the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and the exact shape of the Earth. The details of continents and oceans moving around on Earth actually change the rate, which make it a very hard thing to estimate. The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size.
Thereafter, the Moon will remain at a fixed distance from Earth; the Moon will then appear fixed over one side of the Earth, never to be seen on the other side.
This extrapolation into the future is moot, however, because the Sun will have stopped shinning long before this and, in all likelihood, will have swallowed the Earth and Moon in the process.
In conclusion, it is not a easy question because there are a lot of unknown details about the formation of the Moon, probably a violent impact between the Earth and an object roughly the size of Mars.

What's the closest the moon has been to the Earth? - Yahoo! Answers

Your math should be suffice to follow along and show that what you posted is nonsense.


http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)

this is one of those pseudoscience religious dogma sites nothing they say is based on fact.
my math tells me you and them are talking out your collective ass.
but thanks for helping me showcase your fraudulent knowledge of science.

Your math skills are poor as was pointed out in the other thread take a hike dumbass.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The only fraud in this thread is yourself daws and why are you working so hard to change peoples minds about you ? now I will ignore your posts that are not worth addressing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You resorted to plagiarism in the creationism thread as well daws eh ?

Post of plagiarism. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-1042.html#post6886253

Same ol source you use and don't credit. Amphora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

You have nothing. Got it.

I have more than you could ever imagine.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.

Religion is easy to understand. But it requires faith. And that seems to be difficult for some because they want to see proof which contradicts faith.

 

[BreezeWood]

Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

if that is an answer why are you still here ...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

if that is an answer why are you still here ...

Why wouldn't I still be here?

 

[Boss]

The "70k years..." canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.

These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.

Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately.

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged.

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.

 

[dblack]

The thing is, I don't want anyone to stop believing in their gods. But it would be nice if we could understand them in more a more sophisticated fashion. Just as we've moved on from thinking of other natural phenomena as 'magic', I think we can come to understand religion without resorting to superstition and fantasy.

Religion is easy to understand. But it requires faith. And that seems to be difficult for some because they want to see proof which contradicts faith.

It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.

 

[Mom]

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

You have nothing. Got it.

I have more than you could ever imagine.

So then give me 3. Or are you just a faker?

 

[Montrovant]

The "70k years..." canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.

These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.

Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately.

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged.

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.

Yes, science has discovered the answers to many natural phenomena, removing the need for supernatural explanations. However, there are still many questions humans do not have answers to, and science is not equipped to answer all of them. As you have stated previously, science is generally going to answer the how but not the why.

So, questions such as 'why are we here?', 'what happens after we die?', or 'how did life/the universe begin?' are still very relevant. Those kinds of questions are the kinds of things that religion and belief often provide answers to.

This idea that there are no questions for humanity left which could lead to imagined answers is ridiculous. You have to elevate humanity's knowledge far above where it actually stands in order to think anything else. Our ignorance of the universe still FAR outstrips our knowledge.

Oh, and I don't think superstitious beliefs have all but disappeared. Some of them, sure, but plenty more remain. Beyond those of religion, there are still people who throw salt over their shoulders, avoid walking under ladders, and countless other little superstitions. Again, you seem to give humanity more credit for rationality than is deserved.

 

[Hollie]

The "70k years..." canard is getting old, bunky. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that humankind has a history of assigning objects, icons, human representations of super-human figures, etc., to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand.

These were manifestations of fear and ignorance. You appear to be persistent in your efforts to continue the promotion of fear and ignorance.

Well, it's not a canard and it hasn't been explained adequately.

It most definitely is NOT to explain natural phenomenon they didn't understand, because everything they didn't understand, has been explained through science, and human spirituality is as strong as before science was invented. Unlike superstitious beliefs, which all but disappeared or turned into quaint novelty with the advent of knowledge, human spirituality remains virtually unchanged.

So your argument has been defeated, at least, until some jerkwater who hasn't read the thread, jumps in to chortle it again in a few pages. I understand it's the "go to play" in your play book, and you are naturally inclined to throw it out there whenever this debate arises, but I will continue to reject and challenge it.

I can understand your being angry at your specious opinions bring refuted, but why not counter opposing arguments with fact instead of pith and vinegar? You generously give yourself credit for defeating an argunent you aren't able to understand. You rattle on with terms such as "spirituality", for a failed attempt to promote religion.

I think the truth is useful, of course, which is why it's useful to expose those who make unfounded, bellicose claims which they're unable to defend.

Why do far fewer people believe in literal creationism now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Certainly, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creation hypothesis. In large part this was because the religious authorities had greater influence and managed to rigorously suppress the scientific community. A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery. Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated. That was a positive development for humanity. I can’t imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition. That's why it's important to confront those who promote such fear and superstition.

 

[daws101]

Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?

Still waiting...

I could give you ten but it wouldn't do any good. Unless you profess your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior you will never know God's glory.

the classic dodge!

 

[daws101]

Again your main comment was the term " Bullshit "

Give it up you did the same thing here you did in the thread I called you on. What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it heck I posted the same thing in the creationism thread.

I would probably bet since you copy and paste so much crap from wiki that was your source for your quote above.

are you really this blindly arrogant what you posted was plagiarized ,you have yet to credit the real authors.
not only that the "facts" you speak of are from creationist sites.
they are pseudoscience steaming piles of false premise religious dogma.
not facts. the quote below proves this:

"What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it". YWC

confirming bullshit with bullshit is still bullshit.

So you're claiming they were your words ?

asked and answered.