New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Steelplate]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

Sorry dude. I'm not buying what you are selling. God purposely hid what he did and how he did it. The whole point of believing is FAITH... not trying to beat your head against the wall trying to prove the unprovable. Once again... Fundamentalists miss the whole point of the process.

The whole point.. in case you didn't know... is to still believe when others are bashing you to death about it... to still believe when the whole world is against you. To still believe even if it means your own demise. The whole point is to live in peace, teach by example not judgment, and to achieve the greatest level of understanding and empathy as possible. That is what Christ taught, that is how we are to live our lives. To sit here and argue unimportant details to people who do not believe is, IMO, folly and a waste of energy, time, and life. The best we can do is teach our own children our faith, and live and let live.

 

[Si modo]

Maybe it has to do with your posting style.

If you want to talk science, do so. Otherwise, piss off, bitch.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?

Sorry dude. I'm not buying what you are selling. God purposely hid what he did and how he did it. The whole point of believing is FAITH... not trying to beat your head against the wall trying to prove the unprovable. Once again... Fundamentalists miss the whole point of the process.

The whole point.. in case you didn't know... is to still believe when others are bashing you to death about it... to still believe when the whole world is against you. To still believe even if it means your own demise. The whole point is to live in peace, teach by example not judgment, and to achieve the greatest level of understanding and empathy as possible. That is what Christ taught, that is how we are to live our lives. To sit here and argue unimportant details to people who do not believe is, IMO, folly and a waste of energy, time, and life. The best we can do is teach our own children our faith, and live and let live.

If you havn't noticed that is whats going on,nothing has changed.

But what does your point have to do with this discussion ?

Do you believe God created us or not ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Maybe it has to do with your posting style.

If you want to talk science, do so. Otherwise, piss off, bitch.

If i referred to you as a man, please forgive me, i believe Drock was right for once

 

[Si modo]

Maybe it has to do with your posting style.

If you want to talk science, do so. Otherwise, piss off, bitch.

If i referred to you as a man, please forgive me, i believe Drock was right for once

Honestly, you did nothing at all to offend me. It was just a bit weird to see he/hims used, so I wanted you to know.

Not a problem. Really. But thank you for your consideration.

 

[HUGGY]

Life did not occur on earth before the addition of liquid water. This could not have happened unless a comet or several comets collided with earth. This makes sense because the solar system was far more disorganized early on and many orbits were in conflict "accidents predictably waiting(at great speed in random trajectories) to happen".

Now that the debris of the formation of our known solar system has sorted itself out for a few billion years it is difficult for some to visualize how violent our environment was in the early years.

The collision that formed the moon was especially catastrophic. Even if there was any life started before that event it was blown away into oblivion. My guess is that there were several early starts to life ending finally in the last one that we still enjoy when the major cataclysms stopped occurring.

Air breathing life did not occur on earth before "air" as we know it accumulated in the atmosphere. This could not have happened unless oxygen expelling life had not occurred in great abundance in the early liquid water. First came underwater magma plumes generating energy(heat) to catalyze the chemical accidents necessary to eventually result in the first replicating compounds.

IMO the first replicating phenomenon is/was the formation of water leached crystals under certain but less unlikely conditions. In a sense THAT was/were the first building blocks that made life possible. Life needed a rudimentary pattern to grow on. Before liquid water there was no erosion therefore no accumulation of pockets of life supporting chemical compounds available for chemical reactions.

PS 5:50 PM PST..
OOPS!! My Bad!! Called away on an emergency this mourning..so had to post "As Is"...

I was about to mention that none of the above conditions had anything to do with some fairy godfather.

There are trillions of "Suns"(stars)
many more trillions of planets
many many more trillions of moons
trillions times more water in one form or another than what we have in this solar system
the only important variables are really the size of the star, the distance from the star(to accommodate liquid water) and possibly a moon to create tides

There are most likely millions of suns and correctly orbiting planets with moons out there with the "right stuff" to create life naturally.



No god needed..therefore no god

Only simple minded homo sapiens need god. The rest of the universe ...not so much..

 

[Youwerecreated]

Life did not occur on earth before the addition of liquid water. This could not have happened unless a comet or several comets collided with earth. This makes sense because the solar system was far more disorganized early on and many orbits were in conflict "accidents predictably waiting(at great speed in random trajectories) to happen".

Now that the debris of the formation of our known solar system has sorted itself out for a few billion years it is difficult for some to visualize how violent our environment was in the early years.

The collision that formed the moon was especially catastrophic. Even if there was any life started before that event it was blown away into oblivion. My guess is that there were several early starts to life ending finally in the last one that we still enjoy when the major cataclysms stopped occurring.

Air breathing life did not occur on earth before "air" as we know it accumulated in the atmosphere. This could not have happened unless oxygen expelling life had not occurred in great abundance in the early liquid water. First came underwater magma plumes generating energy(heat) to catalyze the chemical accidents necessary to eventually result in the first replicating compounds.

IMO the first replicating phenomenon is/was the formation of water leached crystals under certain but less unlikely conditions. In a sense THAT was/were the first building blocks that made life possible. Life needed a rudimentary pattern to grow on. Before liquid water there was no erosion therefore no accumulation of pockets of life supporting chemical compounds available for chemical reactions.

PS 5:50 PM PST..
OOPS!! My Bad!! Called away on an emergency this mourning..so had to post "As Is"...

I was about to mention that none of the above conditions had anything to do with some fairy godfather.

There are trillions of "Suns"(stars)
many more trillions of planets
many many more trillions of moons
trillions times more water in one form or another than what we have in this solar system
the only important variables are really the size of the star, the distance from the star(to accommodate liquid water) and possibly a moon to create tides

There are most likely millions of suns and correctly orbiting planets with moons out there with the "right stuff" to create life naturally.



No god needed..therefore no god

Only simple minded homo sapiens need god. The rest of the universe ...not so much..

This video is just right down your alley.I hope you take the time to watch it, and everyone that is following this thread.

Perry Marshall - Origin of the Universe

 

[Si modo]

And, just a general comment on this entire topic - If scientists were ever to entertain a non-falsifiable theory, such as ID or some version of 'God did it', their work would be forever done. All the publications, peer-reviewed or otherwise would simply say, "This is what we observed and God did it" and they would always be right because they have a non-falsifiable theory.

There would be no need for any further investigation.

YWC, I'd like to see your input on this, if you don't mind, of course.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And, just a general comment on this entire topic - If scientists were ever to entertain a non-falsifiable theory, such as ID or some version of 'God did it', their work would be forever done. All the publications, peer-reviewed or otherwise would simply say, "This is what we observed and God did it" and they would always be right because they have a non-falsifiable theory.

There would be no need for any further investigation.

YWC, I'd like to see your input on this, if you don't mind, of course.

First i was just curious did you get a chance to watch the video i posted ?

Well that is whats going on with the theory of Macro-evolution. Micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution there is no doubt it happens. This is what evolutionist extrapolate from. They went to far with the theory and because of that there is less and less evidence to support the theory. The more fossils we find and the more we learn about all fields of science the harder this theory gets to believe .They don't give any chance at all for design even though it's staring them right in the face. There is no doubt the evidence for design and Mr. Marshall did a good job in pointing that out.

Over the thirty years that i have debated this issue it usually winds up the same way. Many young kids get involved in the debate and wow,many know the theory pretty well. But as the discussion goes along i can tell the ones that only know pretty much what they read from a book. Because they pretty much use explanations to defend their position that has never been observed. But it's not their fault because they have been taught that is what happened in many cases ,only to learn later on that has never been observed or it's been refuted.

But just like you said and it's really common among people in the sciences,that there is no way to detect design. I say that is a belief that has been forced on people of science.Design is all around us. As little as we know and as complex as life is who cares if we can't figure everything out about God. If we believed all things were a product of creation that would not change the sciences moving forward with progress. God is not a threat to science the secularlist is the threat to science,God created science.

Someone that holds on to the view that life and everything we see, touch, and feel, is a product of randomness, are missing the big picture. It is very easy to shoot a hole in that view by what we do see,touch,and feel.

 

[Si modo]

And, just a general comment on this entire topic - If scientists were ever to entertain a non-falsifiable theory, such as ID or some version of 'God did it', their work would be forever done. All the publications, peer-reviewed or otherwise would simply say, "This is what we observed and God did it" and they would always be right because they have a non-falsifiable theory.

There would be no need for any further investigation.

YWC, I'd like to see your input on this, if you don't mind, of course.

First i was just curious did you get a chance to watch the video i posted ?

Well that is whats going on with the theory of Macro-evolution. Micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution there is no doubt it happens. This is what evolutionist extrapolate from. They went to far with the theory and because of that there is less and less evidence to support the theory. The more fossils we find and the more we learn about all fields of science the harder this theory gets to believe .They don't give any chance at all for design even though it's staring them right in the face. There is no doubt the evidence for design and Mr. Marshall did a good job in pointing that out.

Over the thirty years that i have debated this issue it usually winds up the same way. Many young kids get involved in the debate and wow,many know the theory pretty well. But as the discussion goes along i can tell the ones that only know pretty much what they read from a book. Because they pretty much use explanations to defend their position that has never been observed. But it's not their fault because they have been taught that is what happened in many cases ,only to learn later on that has never been observed or it's been refuted.

But just like you said and it's really common among people in the sciences,that there is no way to detect design. I say that is a belief that has been forced on people of science.Design is all around us. As little as we know and as complex as life is who cares if we can't figure everything out about God. If we believed all things were a product of creation that would not change the sciences moving forward with progress. God is not a threat to science the secularlist is the threat to science,God created science.

Someone that holds on to the view that life and everything we see, touch, and feel, is a product of randomness, are missing the big picture. It is very easy to shoot a hole in that view by what we do see,touch,and feel.

I was hoping you would comment on what I actually said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, I'd like to see your input on this, if you don't mind, of course.

First i was just curious did you get a chance to watch the video i posted ?

Well that is whats going on with the theory of Macro-evolution. Micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution there is no doubt it happens. This is what evolutionist extrapolate from. They went to far with the theory and because of that there is less and less evidence to support the theory. The more fossils we find and the more we learn about all fields of science the harder this theory gets to believe .They don't give any chance at all for design even though it's staring them right in the face. There is no doubt the evidence for design and Mr. Marshall did a good job in pointing that out.

Over the thirty years that i have debated this issue it usually winds up the same way. Many young kids get involved in the debate and wow,many know the theory pretty well. But as the discussion goes along i can tell the ones that only know pretty much what they read from a book. Because they pretty much use explanations to defend their position that has never been observed. But it's not their fault because they have been taught that is what happened in many cases ,only to learn later on that has never been observed or it's been refuted.

But just like you said and it's really common among people in the sciences,that there is no way to detect design. I say that is a belief that has been forced on people of science.Design is all around us. As little as we know and as complex as life is who cares if we can't figure everything out about God. If we believed all things were a product of creation that would not change the sciences moving forward with progress. God is not a threat to science the secularlist is the threat to science,God created science.

Someone that holds on to the view that life and everything we see, touch, and feel, is a product of randomness, are missing the big picture. It is very easy to shoot a hole in that view by what we do see,touch,and feel.

I was hoping you would comment on what I actually said.

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

 

[Si modo]

First i was just curious did you get a chance to watch the video i posted ?

Well that is whats going on with the theory of Macro-evolution. Micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution there is no doubt it happens. This is what evolutionist extrapolate from. They went to far with the theory and because of that there is less and less evidence to support the theory. The more fossils we find and the more we learn about all fields of science the harder this theory gets to believe .They don't give any chance at all for design even though it's staring them right in the face. There is no doubt the evidence for design and Mr. Marshall did a good job in pointing that out.

Over the thirty years that i have debated this issue it usually winds up the same way. Many young kids get involved in the debate and wow,many know the theory pretty well. But as the discussion goes along i can tell the ones that only know pretty much what they read from a book. Because they pretty much use explanations to defend their position that has never been observed. But it's not their fault because they have been taught that is what happened in many cases ,only to learn later on that has never been observed or it's been refuted.

But just like you said and it's really common among people in the sciences,that there is no way to detect design. I say that is a belief that has been forced on people of science.Design is all around us. As little as we know and as complex as life is who cares if we can't figure everything out about God. If we believed all things were a product of creation that would not change the sciences moving forward with progress. God is not a threat to science the secularlist is the threat to science,God created science.

Someone that holds on to the view that life and everything we see, touch, and feel, is a product of randomness, are missing the big picture. It is very easy to shoot a hole in that view by what we do see,touch,and feel.

I was hoping you would comment on what I actually said.

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

Articluate exactly how you think there does not exist an actual or hypothetical data set which falsifies macro-evolution. I'll remind you of a quote from Darwin himself, though: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Then articluate why you think the 'God did and does it all' theory is falsifiable, if you think it is falsifiable.

 

[Woyzeck]

First i was just curious did you get a chance to watch the video i posted ?

Well that is whats going on with the theory of Macro-evolution. Micro-adaptations or Micro-evolution there is no doubt it happens. This is what evolutionist extrapolate from. They went to far with the theory and because of that there is less and less evidence to support the theory. The more fossils we find and the more we learn about all fields of science the harder this theory gets to believe .They don't give any chance at all for design even though it's staring them right in the face. There is no doubt the evidence for design and Mr. Marshall did a good job in pointing that out.

Over the thirty years that i have debated this issue it usually winds up the same way. Many young kids get involved in the debate and wow,many know the theory pretty well. But as the discussion goes along i can tell the ones that only know pretty much what they read from a book. Because they pretty much use explanations to defend their position that has never been observed. But it's not their fault because they have been taught that is what happened in many cases ,only to learn later on that has never been observed or it's been refuted.

But just like you said and it's really common among people in the sciences,that there is no way to detect design. I say that is a belief that has been forced on people of science.Design is all around us. As little as we know and as complex as life is who cares if we can't figure everything out about God. If we believed all things were a product of creation that would not change the sciences moving forward with progress. God is not a threat to science the secularlist is the threat to science,God created science.

Someone that holds on to the view that life and everything we see, touch, and feel, is a product of randomness, are missing the big picture. It is very easy to shoot a hole in that view by what we do see,touch,and feel.

I was hoping you would comment on what I actually said.

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

So can you offer any tenets of the intelligent design hypothesis? How science backs up that some god made everything, some experiments that would perhaps give credence to your hypothesis, etc?

 

[Si modo]

I was hoping you would comment on what I actually said.

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

So can you offer any tenets of the intelligent design hypothesis? How science backs up that some god made everything, some experiments that would perhaps give credence to your hypothesis, etc?

The science DOES back up the 'God did it' theory. It's a non-falsifiable theory, so there exists no data set, actual or hypothetical, which can falsify it.

But, the 'God did it' theory stops science in its tracks - no need to do anything else, we know the answer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I was hoping you would comment on what I actually said.

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

Articluate exactly how you think there does not exist an actual or hypothetical data set which falsifies macro-evolution.

Then articluate why you think the 'God did and does it all' theory is falsifiable.

Ok,fair enough.

The Giraffe,according to evolutionist they believe that the Giraffe evoled in to a long necked animal so he could eat the leaves on the trees. Now according to the evolutionist, evolution is a long drawn out process.

The Giraffe has a huge heart it could weigh in at about 25 pounds roughly. But the reason the heart is so big because it needed a power heart to pump that blood against gravity up that long neck.

The Giraffe one day realized oh crap, i can eat the leaves on tall trees but i have a problem. If i bend over to drink water all the blood would come rushing to my head and blow my brains out of my ears, so i better evolve something so i can drink.

The Giraffe evolved to where these valves would close off the blood flow so he could bend down to get a drink of water. But the Giraffe while bending over saw a pride of lions coming at him and he suddenly raised his head real fast and ran about three steps and passed out from the lack of oxygen to his brain. When the Giraffe came back to his right mind he said, wow i have to evolve something to where i can raise my head fast so i don't pass out anymore. So the Giraffe did just that, he evolved this little sponge in his brain that would store up this oxygenated blood so when he raised his head quickly he would no longer pass out.

Was this an act of design or an act of evolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry i had to edit errors, I think faster then i type.

 

[Si modo]

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

Articluate exactly how you think there does not exist an actual or hypothetical data set which falsifies macro-evolution.

Then articluate why you think the 'God did and does it all' theory is falsifiable.

Ok,fair enough.

The Giraffe,according to evolutionist they believe that the Giraffe evoled in to a long necked animal so he could eat the leaves on the trees. Now according to the evolutionist, evolution is a long drawn out process.

The Giraffe has a huge heart it could weigh in at about 25 pounds roughly. But the reason the heart is so big because it needed a power heart to pump that blood against gravity up that long neck.

The Giraffe one day realize oh crap i can eat the leaves on tall trees but i have a problem. If i bend over to drink water all the blood would come rushing to my head and blow my brains out of my ears, so i better evolve something so i can drink.

The Giraffe evolved to where these valves would close off the blood flow so he could bend down to get a drink of water. But the Giraffe while bending over saw a pride of lions coming at him and he suddenly raised his head real fast and ran about three steps and passed out from the lack of oxygen to his brain. When the Giraffe came back to his right mind he said, wow i have to evolve something to where i can raise my head fast so i don't pass out anymore. So the Giraffe did just that, he evolved this little sponge in his brain that would store up this oxygenated blood so when he raised his quickly he no longer passed out.

Was this an act of design or an act of evolution ?

Hmmm, it's clear that you aren't grasping the idea of falsifiablility.

But irrespective of that, you just provided an example that the evolution theory IS falsifiable (assuming your account of the facts are correct). Thus, evolution IS a scientific theory.




The 'God did it' theory is NOT falsifiable, thus it is NOT scientific, by definition. It doesn't belong anywhere in the sciences because there is nothing scientific about it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I did,Macro-evolution theory is just that ,it is not a falsifiable theory. Design is a falsifiable theory to the Honest. I don't see how God could have made it more obvious except to do it while we watched.

So can you offer any tenets of the intelligent design hypothesis? How science backs up that some god made everything, some experiments that would perhaps give credence to your hypothesis, etc?

The science DOES back up the 'God did it' theory. It's a non-falsifiable theory, so there exists no data set, actual or hypothetical, which can falsify it.

But, the 'God did it' theory stops science in its tracks - no need to do anything else, we know the answer.

Now if you don't mind will you do the same, except that you show me why evolution is viable and design is not.

 

[Si modo]

So can you offer any tenets of the intelligent design hypothesis? How science backs up that some god made everything, some experiments that would perhaps give credence to your hypothesis, etc?

The science DOES back up the 'God did it' theory. It's a non-falsifiable theory, so there exists no data set, actual or hypothetical, which can falsify it.

But, the 'God did it' theory stops science in its tracks - no need to do anything else, we know the answer.

Now if you don't mind will you do the same, except that you show me why evolution is viable and design is not.

I never said ID was not viable; rather I said it is ALWAYS viable. Because it is ALWAYS viable, it is not scientific, by definition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Articluate exactly how you think there does not exist an actual or hypothetical data set which falsifies macro-evolution.

Then articluate why you think the 'God did and does it all' theory is falsifiable.

Ok,fair enough.

The Giraffe,according to evolutionist they believe that the Giraffe evoled in to a long necked animal so he could eat the leaves on the trees. Now according to the evolutionist, evolution is a long drawn out process.

The Giraffe has a huge heart it could weigh in at about 25 pounds roughly. But the reason the heart is so big because it needed a power heart to pump that blood against gravity up that long neck.

The Giraffe one day realize oh crap i can eat the leaves on tall trees but i have a problem. If i bend over to drink water all the blood would come rushing to my head and blow my brains out of my ears, so i better evolve something so i can drink.

The Giraffe evolved to where these valves would close off the blood flow so he could bend down to get a drink of water. But the Giraffe while bending over saw a pride of lions coming at him and he suddenly raised his head real fast and ran about three steps and passed out from the lack of oxygen to his brain. When the Giraffe came back to his right mind he said, wow i have to evolve something to where i can raise my head fast so i don't pass out anymore. So the Giraffe did just that, he evolved this little sponge in his brain that would store up this oxygenated blood so when he raised his quickly he no longer passed out.

Was this an act of design or an act of evolution ?

Hmmm, it's clear that you aren't grasping the idea of falsifiablility.

But irrespective of that, you just provided an example that the evolution theory IS falsifiable (assuming your account of the facts are correct). Thus, evolution IS a scientific theory.




The 'God did it' theory is NOT falsifiable, thus it is NOT scientific, by definition. It doesn't belong anywhere in the sciences because there is nothing scientific about it.

Really ? i think i do,because in both cases the Giraffe would be dead and something dead can't evolve. For that matter if those things were not there all along we would have no Giraffes they would be extinct.that is a fact. Now your turn.