New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

Do you think your example of the giraffe falsifies - proves it wrong - the theory of evolution?

Of course, that among many factors raised here.

I also gave the recipe that shows the theory is dead on arrival because of mutation argument did you read that ?

Alright. Thanks for giving an affirmative answer.

So, the theory of evolution is indeed, falsifiable.

Do you agree on that generalization?

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Of course, that among many factors raised here.

I also gave the recipe that shows the theory is dead on arrival because of mutation argument did you read that ?

Alright. Thanks for giving an affirmative answer.

So, the theory of evolution is indeed, falsifiable.

Do you agree on that generalization?

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

It's possible for me to observe something and scientifically prove god didn't do it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cool. You've provided another example (assuming your accounts of the facts are true) that falsifies the theory of evolution.

Do you agree?

You see, this is how it usually winds up when you guys get backed in a corner you avoid answering the obvious questions truthfully.

Anyone who reads this will see that once again design triumphs over wishful thinking. But thanks for playing.

I agree with you and you get upset? I agree that your sponge example falsifies the theory of evolution and you get upset?

I am not upset,are you kidding ? the way you are acting is predictable i have been doing this for thirty years. You're all the same.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Alright. Thanks for giving an affirmative answer.

So, the theory of evolution is indeed, falsifiable.

Do you agree on that generalization?

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

It's possible for me to observe something and scientifically prove god didn't do it?

Really ? if that was the case you guys would have revealed that by now.

But anyhow do you have an answer to my question yet ?

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

If you can provide this answer you killed the argument,if you can't it's just another nail in the coffin of Macro-evolution.

 

[Si modo]

Of course, that among many factors raised here.

I also gave the recipe that shows the theory is dead on arrival because of mutation argument did you read that ?

Alright. Thanks for giving an affirmative answer.

So, the theory of evolution is indeed, falsifiable.

Do you agree on that generalization?

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

Well, I can't give you a reason that the sponge is a product of evolution. One, I don't know enough about how sponges have evolved. And, two, I'll just stipulate to your account that the sponge falsifies the theory of evolution.

Since the sponge (and giraffe) falsify the theory of evolution (stipulating your examples falsifying evolution), the theory of evolution IS falsifiable.

Falsifiability, in logic, is the condition where there exists an observation and/or a data set, either actual or hypothetical, that falsifies the theory. It is capable of being falsified, able to be proven false.






The theory of evolution IS falsifiable.

Thus, the theory of evolution IS a scientific theory, by definition.

Those are facts that are irrefutable.

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

Which is the problem with intelligent design. Simply presenting half-baked and ill thought out criticisms of evolution does not make creationism a valid scientific theory or present adequate explanations for the natural world.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

It's possible for me to observe something and scientifically prove god didn't do it?

Really ? if that was the case you guys would have revealed that by now.

But anyhow do you have an answer to my question yet ?

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

If you can provide this answer you killed the argument,if you can't it's just another nail in the coffin of Macro-evolution.

It was a question, I wasn't making the assessment that it's possible to prove god doesn't exist.

I've already answered that by providing the links to bacteria and how they first came about. It gets old how often I have to repeat myself in your threads.

 

[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.

Which is the problem with intelligent design. Simply presenting half-baked and ill thought out criticisms of evolution does not make creationism a valid scientific theory or present adequate explanations for the natural world.

Exactly my point. Incorporating the 'God did it' theory into the sciences would put an immediate end TO the sciences.

 

[Woyzeck]

Of course, that among many factors raised here.

I also gave the recipe that shows the theory is dead on arrival because of mutation argument did you read that ?

Alright. Thanks for giving an affirmative answer.

So, the theory of evolution is indeed, falsifiable.

Do you agree on that generalization?

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Alright. Thanks for giving an affirmative answer.

So, the theory of evolution is indeed, falsifiable.

Do you agree on that generalization?

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

 

[Si modo]

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

There is no such thing as proving a theory in science. That is also a principle in the LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, which you said you read.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well it's time for my bike ride, i shall return to see if there is an answer to the atheist's riddle.

 

[Si modo]

Well it's time for my bike ride, i shall return to see if there is an answer to the atheist's riddle.

Several of us answered it yesterday.

 

[Woyzeck]

So give me how evolutionist proved the sponge is a product of evolution and how the valves didn't close before and evolved ? Because we can and have observed this phenomenon up close and personal.

Design is ;

Definition for falsifiable:


confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

There is no such thing as proving a theory in science. That is also a principle in the LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, which you said you read.

Oh yeah ,i just see that as a convient way to say we don't have a clue.

When only part of your theory can be observed and proven ,you see the problems it presents for the rest of the theory, that is only a product of ones vivid imagination.

That is so they have something to fall back on that is a little convient no ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well it's time for my bike ride, i shall return to see if there is an answer to the atheist's riddle.

Several of us answered it yesterday.

Are you serious

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

I'll help you , Vivid imagination.

I will click your links and point out that they don't have a clue when i return.

 

[Woyzeck]

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

I'll help you , Vivid imagination.

I will click your links and point out that they don't have a clue when i return.

This will be the actual first time you have actually look at the evidence I presented and will critique it.

I look forward to it.

 

[Si modo]

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

There is no such thing as proving a theory in science. That is also a principle in the LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, which you said you read.

Oh yeah ,i just see that as a convient way to say we don't have a clue.

....

I suppose that is one way to actually look at it. As such - "not having a clue" - we, scientists, ensure that investigation, discovery, and the expansion of knowledge continues.

.... When only part of your theory can be observed and proven ,you see the problems it presents for the rest of the theory, that is only a product of ones vivid imagination.

....

As scientific theories are falsifiable and as we often DO see problems, that is part of the excitement of science and the continuation of science. We are a curious lot, and want to find out why things happen the way they do.

We are an inherently lazy lot, too. If we have a theory or even a law that already explains something, we certainly are not going to waste our time doing more work to support something we already know for a fact. We'll go fishing (or shopping, for the ladies ) instead.

.... That is so they have something to fall back on that is a little convient no ?

It certainly is convenient in that it allows science to continue to investigate, discover, and expand knowledge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well it's time for my bike ride, i shall return to see if there is an answer to the atheist's riddle.

Several of us answered it yesterday.

Oh i forgot, can you explain how the natural process brought forth information again i must have missed it.