Does God Exist?

[Hollie]

Them apples are rotten. Can you identify where the heaven is located where Satan and his demons live?

I’m curious because with all of the spacecraft that NASA has sent into geostationary orbit and those leaving earth gravity, they have never encountered any of the boogeymen who haunt your world.

Wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

Satan and his demons have been witnessed by trained observers. That is the level of criteria that atheist scientist Carl Sagan stated. I provide evidence that is observable and valid and you still have nothing for evolution. Satan is the "prince of the power of the air."

We will never know what the UFO and UAP was because Satan wants to hide as I've been stating.

Satan and his demons are piloting UFO’s?

 

[Hollie]

Its pretty hilarious watching this fraud copy paste scientific research he doesn't understand, when literally all the scientific evidence points to the fact of evolution.

Who is he? If you mean me - I do understand what I posted - perhaps you didn't though.

For example, do you know the significance of specific amino acids with the same chemical formula having different isomers, not to mention chirality/polarization?

Oh, but you are not totally wrong - I am learning while researching. For example, I did not know a tautomer is an interchangeable isomer in equilibrium with another isomer, nor did I know zwiterions are isomers with different placement of electrical charge but also in equilibrium with the parent molecule in solution. [I.e. a reversible reaction from the parent and its zwiterion]

But the main point is that the amino acid in question is not found in proteins - neither the parent amino acid molecule nor its zwiterion/tautomer/isomer.

It’s clearly irrelevant to this thread but so is Satan and his demons piloting UFO’s.

I’ll submit that you and James Bond both have extremely high EQ’s (Entertainment Quotients).

 

[Newtonian]

From google search concerning Valine:

"Valine is an aliphatic and extremely hydrophobic essential amino acid in humans related to leucine, Valine is found in many proteins, mostly in the interior of globular proteins helping to determine three-dimensional structure....
It contains an α-amino group, an α-carboxylic acid group, and a side chain isopropyl group, making it a non-polar aliphatic amino acid..... C5H11NO2"

As I posted, Miller identified this amino acid in his experiment, but in a proportion of only 19.5.

OK, I will stop there for now - a quick examination of the list of amino acids found by Miller (see the chart linked to above. It will take a long time to detail the amino acids Miller found in still smaller proportion, so I will ignore for now the many (predominant) amino acids he found that are not found in proteins.

Instead, I will simply list the proportions of the other proteinous amino acids in very low proportions which Miller identified in his experiment:

Leucine - 11.3
Isoleucine - 4.8
Proline - 1.5
Glutamic acid - 7.7
Serine - 5.0
Threonine - 0.8

A few of the more prominent amino acids Miller identified which are not in proteins:

B(Beta)-Alanine - 18.8
N-methylalanine - 15
aB (alpha beta)-Diaminopropionic acid - 6.4
Norleucine - 6.0
Isoserine - 5.5
Alloisoleucine - 5.1
Isovaline - 5
N-methyl-beta-alanine - 5

Bottom line - How did the 10 amino acids Miller found - only 3 in relatively high proportion - get selected from these 23 amino acids especially since only 7 of which have a proportion of greater than 5?

Btw - some authors say that Miller only found 2, 3 or 4 amino acids found in proteins because the other amino acids were in such a low proportion. Only Alanine and Glycine were in high proportion!

 

[Votto]

Does God Exist?

That depends.

1. How do you define "exist?"

2. Even more difficult, how do you define "God?"

Bill Clinton still has me on the question, define what you mean by "is".

 

[Votto]

I've found that they have to repent their atheism first. I think it's hard for them to have faith in God because their atheism gets in the way.

I've never understood why it's important that others believe what you believe. Faith is a personal thing, not collective.

Because I have all the answers and if you disagree that makes you a flawed human being.

Duh!

Actually, it does kind of make sense. We tend to be social creatures and, as such, we correctly assess that if others believe something to be true the odds of it being true tend to increase. Problem is, when everyone is wrong it all gets blown to hell, but usually it works which is why we try and gauge just how at odds we are with most beliefs.

 

[Newtonian]

Its pretty hilarious watching this fraud copy paste scientific research he doesn't understand, when literally all the scientific evidence points to the fact of evolution.

Who is he? If you mean me - I do understand what I posted - perhaps you didn't though.

For example, do you know the significance of specific amino acids with the same chemical formula having different isomers, not to mention chirality/polarization?

Oh, but you are not totally wrong - I am learning while researching. For example, I did not know a tautomer is an interchangeable isomer in equilibrium with another isomer, nor did I know zwiterions are isomers with different placement of electrical charge but also in equilibrium with the parent molecule in solution. [I.e. a reversible reaction from the parent and its zwiterion]

But the main point is that the amino acid in question is not found in proteins - neither the parent amino acid molecule nor its zwiterion/tautomer/isomer.

It’s clearly irrelevant to this thread but so is Satan and his demons piloting UFO’s.

I’ll submit that you and James Bond both have extremely high EQ’s (Entertainment Quotients).

You failed to note what I observed. Or should I say observe what I noted?

And I might add that in view of the many times I have observed the stars, the proportion is even less than that of Threonine!

Would you believe less than Pipecolic acid?

I have seen more meteorites, of course.

Some of these may have been piloted according to TV remakes of H.G. Wells War of the Worlds!

Clearly, it is time for me to go to sleep - when I get tired my sense of humor tends to take over!

High EQ - I like that!

 

[fncceo]

I've found that they have to repent their atheism first. I think it's hard for them to have faith in God because their atheism gets in the way.

I've never understood why it's important that others believe what you believe. Faith is a personal thing, not collective.

Because I have all the answers and if you disagree that makes you a flawed human being.

Duh!

I am so flawed that if you knew it all, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Maybe it's a good thing I keep my beliefs to myself.

 

[Newtonian]

Does God Exist?

That depends.

1. How do you define "exist?"

2. Even more difficult, how do you define "God?"

Bill Clinton still has me on the question, define what you mean by "is".

Would you believe the 3rd and 4th letters of Exist!

 

[Newtonian]

So, if someone is willing to spend $40 and post the full content of Miller's article - I am interested. But having studied Thaxton's book I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the chart.

I watched Stanley Miller's description of the experiment if this covers the $40 topic of Hollie haha.

You can download his two videos here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

Thank you James! Not now, because I will be offline soon. But I will later - I have unlimited data midnight to 5 AM - though I might be asleep then!

 

[james bond]

Satan and his demons are piloting UFO’s?

No, it's just an illusion because nothing existing could fly that fast. They tempted the pilots to chase them, no?

What about 9/11? What do you think that was besides terrorism? Prince of the power of the air? I still miss visiting the twin towers in NYC?

I have my own 9/11 story. I was in Hawaii with my wife and 3-yr old son and 1-yr old daughter. She had her birthday on the flight over to Hawaii. Because it was her first jet trip and vacation, I purchased trip insurance for the family. We stayed in one the nicer hotels there. The day we were supposed to fly home, my sister-in-law calls and said we're not going anywhere; The airport was shutdown. I asked why and she said turn on the news. I just turned the tv on to see the airline fly into one of the towers and then a second into the other. It was shocking. I next called the insurance and they said they will take care of everything. I arranged with the hotel to let us stay until we could fly home, at least a week more.

ETA: I wasn't a Christian then, but went to non-denominational chruch. They warned us when flying if we felt really bad about it. I didn't feel bad about our flying and vacation, but decided to buy the insurance when I didn't do it that often.

 

[BreezeWood]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

but you claim our universe is round.

.
no

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

- but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

.
no, the cyclical BB when completed is represented as a sphere ... as a finite angle of trajectory forming a mathematically perfect circumference.

the image, ignoring the text, illustrates the cyclical BB where all matter is projected from the moment past singularity along a finite angle of trajectory that will return all matter at the same time to its original point of origin without changing direction as a mirror image and will again repeat the consolidation for a repeat conclusion to a new moment of singularity.

what bias is that, disdain for disinformation as a substitute for credible alternatives whether correct or not.

Read my lips: There was, there is, there won't be any evolution.

a pat on the back for one of your brethren ... surly as it is written in your book.

 

[MarathonMike]

I think there is. I don't believe any human knows who or what God is exactly, but IMO there's too much evidence to discount the existence of a God or Gods.

There is no evidence that proves the existence of a God or Gods. My argument is: There is no God. The onus is on YOU to PROVE that God exists.

The existence of God isn't provable in the mathematical or legal sense. So like I said I don't claim to know who or what God is. I just see a lot of evidence that supports God or the Gods existence.

I think there is. I don't believe any human knows who or what God is exactly, but IMO there's too much evidence to discount the existence of a God or Gods.

There is no evidence that proves the existence of a God or Gods. My argument is: There is no God. The onus is on YOU to PROVE that God exists.

The evidence is circumstantial, but there is a lot of it. Kind of like the O.J. case.

And yet you don't cite any evidence at all.

The evidence is all around you.

What? The universe? That's your evidence for God? The universe proves that IT exists. It proves nothing about God.

The universe and the life in it is evidence enough for me. If it's not sufficient for you, that's fine.

 

[BreezeWood]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

.
there is abundant evidence for the process for speciation -

transforming from one being into another is an everyday occurrence of metamorphosis - the same process would have similar results parent to sibling transformation in a single instance of a new being as a metaphysical exercise developed over numerous generations till its final enactment in a single step and reproduced by the new sibling for all future generations.

 

[MarathonMike]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

.
there is abundant evidence for the process for speciation -

View attachment 330677

transforming from one being into another is an everyday occurrence of metamorphosis - the same process would have similar results parent to sibling transformation in a single instance of a new being as a metaphysical exercise developed over numerous generations till its final enactment in a single step and reproduced by the new sibling for all future generations.

OK. But how does a bunch of inanimate "stuff" make the leap to a living organism? I know all about the building blocks of life. I have yet to see humans take said building blocks and make the blocks start walking around.

 

[BreezeWood]

the image, ignoring the text, illustrates the cyclical BB where all matter is projected from the moment past singularity along a finite angle of trajectory that will return all matter at the same time to its original point of origin without changing direction as a mirror image and will again repeat the consolidation for a repeat conclusion to a new moment of singularity.

Why should we ignore the text? It makes more sense than your text haha. Anything makes more sense that your text. Physics tells us there was no singularity and thus no big bang. None of it follows any king of science unless it's BS science (which it is .

.

the image, ignoring the text, illustrates the cyclical BB where all matter is projected from the moment past singularity along a finite angle of trajectory that will return all matter at the same time to its original point of origin without changing direction as a mirror image and will again repeat the consolidation for a repeat conclusion to a new moment of singularity.

Why should we ignore the text? It makes more sense than your text haha. Anything makes more sense that your text. Physics tells us there was no singularity and thus no big bang. None of it follows any king of science unless it's BS science (which it is .

.

Why should we ignore the text? It makes more sense than your text haha. Anything makes more sense that your text. Physics tells us there was no singularity and thus no big bang. None of it follows any king of science unless it's BS science (which it is .

.
because the illustration was an example not related to the text it came with ... physics makes no claim there was not a moment of singularity but divert from the post if that makes you happy - the boomerang theory is an explanation for a cyclical BB - that you have yet to refute.

 

[BreezeWood]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

.
there is abundant evidence for the process for speciation -

View attachment 330677

transforming from one being into another is an everyday occurrence of metamorphosis - the same process would have similar results parent to sibling transformation in a single instance of a new being as a metaphysical exercise developed over numerous generations till its final enactment in a single step and reproduced by the new sibling for all future generations.

OK. But how does a bunch of inanimate "stuff" make the leap to a living organism? I know all about the building blocks of life. I have yet to see humans take said building blocks and make the blocks start walking around.

OK. But how does a bunch of inanimate "stuff" make the leap to a living organism?

a living organism is composed of two ingredients - physiology and spiritual content - and the prevailing conditions conducive to their development all of which occurred on planet Earth together and with a precipitous bolt of lightening at the exact time necessary the first cell was born.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do understand what I posted

Hmm, no, I don't think that you do. That is why your nonsense is at odds with the overwhelming consensus of the entire global scientific community. You don't actually understand any of this at all. You have no background in it, have published zero research, and would never be taken seriously by anyone educated in any of these fields. You are an internet conman, testing out your material, who will almost certainly only ever really convince gullible children of your nonsense. Probably just your own children at that, unless you, unfortunately, are trusted with others' kids.

 

[Hollie]

Satan and his demons are piloting UFO’s?

No, it's just an illusion because nothing existing could fly that fast. They tempted the pilots to chase them, no?

What about 9/11? What do you think that was besides terrorism? Prince of the power of the air? I still miss visiting the twin towers in NYC?

I have my own 9/11 story. I was in Hawaii with my wife and 3-yr old son and 1-yr old daughter. She had her birthday on the flight over to Hawaii. Because it was her first jet trip and vacation, I purchased trip insurance for the family. We stayed in one the nicer hotels there. The day we were supposed to fly home, my sister-in-law calls and said we're not going anywhere; The airport was shutdown. I asked why and she said turn on the news. I just turned the tv on to see the airline fly into one of the towers and then a second into the other. It was shocking. I next called the insurance and they said they will take care of everything. I arranged with the hotel to let us stay until we could fly home, at least a week more.

ETA: I wasn't a Christian then, but went to non-denominational chruch. They warned us when flying if we felt really bad about it. I didn't feel bad about our flying and vacation, but decided to buy the insurance when I didn't do it that often.

Your loopy claims to flying Satans and demons is truly disturbing.

 

[alang1216]

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

When you look at rocks that contain dinosaurs you find no evidence of elephants. Only later, when dinosaurs became extinct, do you find evidence for elephants. Where did the elephants come from?

Would you believe mice? [you need to be smart like Maxwell]

Seriously:

I am not sure what is the oldest variety of elephant found in the fossil record - please enlighten me. I cannot research that while researching the amino acids Miller identified in his experiment. If I try to do both at the same time I may experience information overload.

Another subject - but I believe there were a number of condensation catastrophes with extinctions resulting. But my research on that is also incomplete. I think elephants were created after Dinosaurs went extinct - but I have not researched the fossil record to be sure of that.

Bottom line: rocks don't lie. That goes for K-40 dating of shield rock, over 64 million petagrams of carbon in earth's crustal carbonates deposited by the geologic carbon cycle, and the fossil record - for 3 examples.

The elephant's 'kind' have been around for less than 40 million years, well after dinos went extinct. The timeline is unimportant, only that there were no elephants, then there were. The question is, is God continually creating new 'kinds' for was he finished in 6 days?

 

[alang1216]

Creationists and evolutionists have the same facts, but come up with different conclusions and theories.

Evolutionists take these facts and formulate a theory to explain them. Creationists take these same facts and tell you why you can't believe what you see because things were different back then (the present is not the key to the past), or the science is not proven, or Satan is fooling us.