New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

What is wrong with this definition of scientific theory ?


"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. ...

instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/glossary.html

 

[Si modo]

What is wrong with this definition of scientific theory ?


"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. ...

instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/glossary.html

What you've posted is not a definition of a theory, that's what's wrong with it.

And, your own link (an incomplete link at that) tells you a scientific theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE.

I gave you the link that tells you exactly what attributes a scientific theory must have already.



ID and the 'god did it' theories are NOT FALSIFIABLE, thus they are not scientific theories.

 

[tonystewart1]

If there is "scientific" evidence for GOD, then that's the end of faith, hence the end of religion.

Here's a thought...if you looking for empirical evidence for GOD, you're NOT REALLY a Christian.

Because if you're seeking evidence of GOD, you don't understand the basic tenets THAT religon AT ALL.

My thoughts exactly. We are saved by grace through faith. If it could ever be proved that God exists then that is the end of faith.

How is it the end to faith ?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Once you have proof of something beileving in it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of fact. God requires our faith in him for salvation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is wrong with this definition of scientific theory ?


"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. ...

instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/glossary.html

What you've posted is not a definition of a theory, that's what's wrong with it.

And, your own link (an incomplete link at that) tells you a scientific theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE.

I gave you the link that tells you exactly what attributes a scientific theory must have already.



ID and the 'god did it' theories are NOT FALSIFIABLE, thus they are not scientific theories.

Why would it be part of the definition ?

GLOSSARY
by Sandra LaFave


Glossary for Philosophy 17


de·sign/dəˈzīn/


Noun: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

Verb: Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

I ask you again can design be detected through a scientific means ?

Then how is macro-evolution falsfiable ?

Definition for falsifiable:


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

The fossil record don't show it. It has not been observed even though the ignorant say's it has.

How has it been tested ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

My thoughts exactly. We are saved by grace through faith. If it could ever be proved that God exists then that is the end of faith.

How is it the end to faith ?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Once you have proof of something beileving in it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of fact. God requires our faith in him for salvation.

We can prove design by doing so we prove a creator.

God will still not be seen until judgement day. We will still be going on faith nothing has changed.

 

[Si modo]

What is wrong with this definition of scientific theory ?


"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. ...

instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/glossary.html

What you've posted is not a definition of a theory, that's what's wrong with it.

And, your own link (an incomplete link at that) tells you a scientific theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE.

I gave you the link that tells you exactly what attributes a scientific theory must have already.



ID and the 'god did it' theories are NOT FALSIFIABLE, thus they are not scientific theories.

Why would it be part of the definition ?

GLOSSARY
by Sandra LaFave


Glossary for Philosophy 17


de·sign/dəˈzīn/


Noun: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

Verb: Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

I ask you again can design be detected through a scientific means ?

Then how is macro-evolution falsfiable ?

Definition for falsifiable:


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

The fossil record don't show it. It has not been observed even though the ignorant say's it has.

How has it been tested ?

Just because you don't understand why falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be scientific, does not mean much of anything. Links have been given to you, and your own link says it, falsifiability is a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific. It has been explained to you, over and over and over and over and over again.

I am a goddam broken record here.

That is a fact.

Period.



And, with respect to macro-evolution - you, yourself, showed several examples where it is falsified, so...duh...it is falsifiable.



You are being willfully obtuse at this point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My thoughts exactly. We are saved by grace through faith. If it could ever be proved that God exists then that is the end of faith.

How is it the end to faith ?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Once you have proof of something beileving in it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of fact. God requires our faith in him for salvation.

I don't think that is saying what you think it is saying.

Psa 19:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork.

Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare His righteousness; for God Himself is judge. Selah.

Psa 97:6 The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the people see His glory

There is no doubt God exists to the believer, our faith is believing and trusting in him,that he will do what he say's.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you've posted is not a definition of a theory, that's what's wrong with it.

And, your own link (an incomplete link at that) tells you a scientific theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE.

I gave you the link that tells you exactly what attributes a scientific theory must have already.



ID and the 'god did it' theories are NOT FALSIFIABLE, thus they are not scientific theories.

Why would it be part of the definition ?

GLOSSARY
by Sandra LaFave


Glossary for Philosophy 17


de·sign/dəˈzīn/


Noun: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

Verb: Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

I ask you again can design be detected through a scientific means ?

Then how is macro-evolution falsfiable ?

Definition for falsifiable:


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

The fossil record don't show it. It has not been observed even though the ignorant say's it has.

How has it been tested ?

Just because you don't understand why falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be scientific, does not mean much of anything. Links have been given to you, and your own link says it, falsifiability is a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific. It has been explained to you, over and over and over and over and over again.

I am a goddam broken record here.

That is a fact.

Period.



And, with respect to macro-evolution - you, yourself, showed several examples where it is falsified, so...duh...it is falsifiable.



You are being willfully obtuse at this point.

The other day i showed you the evidence of design but you couldn't bring yourself to admit it,so you claimed it was evidence of macro-evolution. Really i got a good laugh out of it.

Show me evidence that is convincing.

Duh ,show me your evidence ?

Do i need to quote real scientists to show you macro-evolution has never been documented ?first you need to learn your own terms, don't be an Ideologue.

 

[tonystewart1]

How is it the end to faith ?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Once you have proof of something beileving in it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of fact. God requires our faith in him for salvation.

I don't think that is saying what you think it is saying.

Psa 19:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork.

Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare His righteousness; for God Himself is judge. Selah.

Psa 97:6 The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the people see His glory

There is no doubt God exists to the believer, our faith is believing and trusting in him,that he will do what he say's.

Our faith is beileving in God to start with. Then beiieving in his son Jesus. We as beilevers know God exists and point to the moon and stars and deer and fish and say look God exists. To the non believer those things are explained in other ways. We have faith that God exists.

If you could beyond a shadow of a doubt prove the existance of God then we would no longer have to have faith to beilieve in him. We are saved by his grace through our faith. Read Ephesians 2:8.

Trying to prove the existance of God is opposite of what we should be doing. We should be exercising our blind faith in Him and His Son. Showing our faith to others to act as a light so they they might beileve.

 

[LebanonPride]

In a way, this could be considered scientific proof God exists:

islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa092300a.htm

Nobody other than God could of known some of those things at that time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What you've posted is not a definition of a theory, that's what's wrong with it.

And, your own link (an incomplete link at that) tells you a scientific theory MUST BE FALSIFIABLE.

I gave you the link that tells you exactly what attributes a scientific theory must have already.



ID and the 'god did it' theories are NOT FALSIFIABLE, thus they are not scientific theories.

Why would it be part of the definition ?

GLOSSARY
by Sandra LaFave


Glossary for Philosophy 17


de·sign/dəˈzīn/


Noun: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

Verb: Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

I ask you again can design be detected through a scientific means ?

Then how is macro-evolution falsfiable ?

Definition for falsifiable:


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

The fossil record don't show it. It has not been observed even though the ignorant say's it has.

How has it been tested ?

Just because you don't understand why falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be scientific, does not mean much of anything. Links have been given to you, and your own link says it, falsifiability is a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific. It has been explained to you, over and over and over and over and over again.

I am a goddam broken record here.

That is a fact.

Period.



And, with respect to macro-evolution - you, yourself, showed several examples where it is falsified, so...duh...it is falsifiable.



You are being willfully obtuse at this point.

Let's test your reasoning.

A house,car,paintings,computers,phones, are all products of design.

Can you rationally explain how a cell is not a product of design ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).

Once you have proof of something beileving in it is not a matter of faith it is a matter of fact. God requires our faith in him for salvation.

I don't think that is saying what you think it is saying.

Psa 19:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork.

Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare His righteousness; for God Himself is judge. Selah.

Psa 97:6 The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the people see His glory

There is no doubt God exists to the believer, our faith is believing and trusting in him,that he will do what he say's.

Our faith is beileving in God to start with. Then beiieving in his son Jesus. We as beilevers know God exists and point to the moon and stars and deer and fish and say look God exists. To the non believer those things are explained in other ways. We have faith that God exists.

If you could beyond a shadow of a doubt prove the existance of God then we would no longer have to have faith to beilieve in him. We are saved by his grace through our faith. Read Ephesians 2:8.

Trying to prove the existance of God is opposite of what we should be doing. We should be exercising our blind faith in Him and His Son. Showing our faith to others to act as a light so they they might beileve.

I do on a daily basis whether i know for sure God is real and he is out there.

 

[tonystewart1]

I don't think that is saying what you think it is saying.

Psa 19:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse proclaims His handiwork.

Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare His righteousness; for God Himself is judge. Selah.

Psa 97:6 The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the people see His glory

There is no doubt God exists to the believer, our faith is believing and trusting in him,that he will do what he say's.

Our faith is beileving in God to start with. Then beiieving in his son Jesus. We as beilevers know God exists and point to the moon and stars and deer and fish and say look God exists. To the non believer those things are explained in other ways. We have faith that God exists.

If you could beyond a shadow of a doubt prove the existance of God then we would no longer have to have faith to beilieve in him. We are saved by his grace through our faith. Read Ephesians 2:8.

Trying to prove the existance of God is opposite of what we should be doing. We should be exercising our blind faith in Him and His Son. Showing our faith to others to act as a light so they they might beileve.

I do on a daily basis whether i know for sure God is real and he is out there.

Then trying to prove to anyone that God is real and the Bible is real is a waste of time because salvation comes from your faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our faith is beileving in God to start with. Then beiieving in his son Jesus. We as beilevers know God exists and point to the moon and stars and deer and fish and say look God exists. To the non believer those things are explained in other ways. We have faith that God exists.

If you could beyond a shadow of a doubt prove the existance of God then we would no longer have to have faith to beilieve in him. We are saved by his grace through our faith. Read Ephesians 2:8.

Trying to prove the existance of God is opposite of what we should be doing. We should be exercising our blind faith in Him and His Son. Showing our faith to others to act as a light so they they might beileve.

I do on a daily basis whether i know for sure God is real and he is out there.

Then trying to prove to anyone that God is real and the Bible is real is a waste of time because salvation comes from your faith.

Respectfully, i have to disagree with you.

I know many women and men of science that became believers because the absurdity of the theory. Many became believers because what they saw in the labs,they knew the things they were seeing was not by random chance.

Trying to understand the workings of a cell and what it is made up of,it is rediculous to think that the cell was a product of chance. There is so much more than a cell that almost make you feel foolish to think they could of happened by random chance.

 

[tonystewart1]

I do on a daily basis whether i know for sure God is real and he is out there.

Then trying to prove to anyone that God is real and the Bible is real is a waste of time because salvation comes from your faith.

Respectfully, i have to disagree with you.

I know many women and men of science that became believers because the absurdity of the theory. Many became believers because what they saw in the labs,they knew the things they were seeing was not by random chance.

Trying to understand the workings of a cell and what it is made up of,it is rediculous to think that the cell was a product of chance. There is so much more than a cell that almost make you feel foolish to think they could of happened by random chance.

I agree that the study of science can edify ones faith in God. I love the documentaries I watch on the science channel and others becasue to me they are affirming to my faith.

I agree with you 100 percent that after studying a cell that it would be impossible to see it as mere chance. There has to be a design and a designer.

My point is that you first intial belief that God is real and that his son Jesus Christ came to shed his blood for our sins is completly based on faith and nothing can prove that. If that could be proven then it would be meaningless because that faith is what is needed for salvation.

 

[dilloduck]

Then trying to prove to anyone that God is real and the Bible is real is a waste of time because salvation comes from your faith.

Respectfully, i have to disagree with you.

I know many women and men of science that became believers because the absurdity of the theory. Many became believers because what they saw in the labs,they knew the things they were seeing was not by random chance.

Trying to understand the workings of a cell and what it is made up of,it is rediculous to think that the cell was a product of chance. There is so much more than a cell that almost make you feel foolish to think they could of happened by random chance.

I agree that the study of science can edify ones faith in God. I love the documentaries I watch on the science channel and others becasue to me they are affirming to my faith.

I agree with you 100 percent that after studying a cell that it would be impossible to see it as mere chance. There has to be a design and a designer.

My point is that you first intial belief that God is real and that his son Jesus Christ came to shed his blood for our sins is completly based on faith and nothing can prove that. If that could be proven then it would be meaningless because that faith is what is needed for salvation.

Faith is a weird concept. Why would ones belief in something that can't be "proven" be greater than ones belief in something that can ? Is it the risk factor?

 

[tonystewart1]

Respectfully, i have to disagree with you.

I know many women and men of science that became believers because the absurdity of the theory. Many became believers because what they saw in the labs,they knew the things they were seeing was not by random chance.

Trying to understand the workings of a cell and what it is made up of,it is rediculous to think that the cell was a product of chance. There is so much more than a cell that almost make you feel foolish to think they could of happened by random chance.

I agree that the study of science can edify ones faith in God. I love the documentaries I watch on the science channel and others becasue to me they are affirming to my faith.

I agree with you 100 percent that after studying a cell that it would be impossible to see it as mere chance. There has to be a design and a designer.

My point is that you first intial belief that God is real and that his son Jesus Christ came to shed his blood for our sins is completly based on faith and nothing can prove that. If that could be proven then it would be meaningless because that faith is what is needed for salvation.

Faith is a weird concept. Why would ones belief in something that can't be "proven" be greater than ones belief in something that can ? Is it the risk factor?

Belief in something that can not be proven is faith. Belief in somthing that can be proven is just accepting a fact.

Faith is mysterious because is forces you to put aside that very logical part of your brain and just feel.

 

[JScott]

I don't deny he ate meat,i deny he was this predator you believe he was. But i differ with you when he began eating meat.

His teeth were not sunk into the jaw enough to support attacking other dinosaurs and ripping meat out of them.

But mostly because nothing ate meat until after the fall of adam.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be meat eaters teeth?

He ate meat,but was he this predator imagination says he was.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be the imagined meat eaters teeth?

 

[JScott]

Your figure came first.

Honestly, what the hell are you going on about now?

2002 (your link) is older than 2005 (my link).



If you want, I will find something newer, but that is the number - 98%. Your information is outdated.

Well you know the chimps DNA has never been mapped so how would they know there is only a 2% difference ?

Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005

Scientists said yesterday that they have determined the precise order of the 3 billion bits of genetic code that carry the instructions for making a chimpanzee, humankind's closest cousin.

The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life.
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee

 

[Si modo]

Why would it be part of the definition ?

GLOSSARY
by Sandra LaFave


Glossary for Philosophy 17


de·sign/dəˈzīn/


Noun: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

Verb: Decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.

I ask you again can design be detected through a scientific means ?

Then how is macro-evolution falsfiable ?

Definition for falsifiable:


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

The fossil record don't show it. It has not been observed even though the ignorant say's it has.

How has it been tested ?

Just because you don't understand why falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be scientific, does not mean much of anything. Links have been given to you, and your own link says it, falsifiability is a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific. It has been explained to you, over and over and over and over and over again.

I am a goddam broken record here.

That is a fact.

Period.



And, with respect to macro-evolution - you, yourself, showed several examples where it is falsified, so...duh...it is falsifiable.



You are being willfully obtuse at this point.

The other day i showed you the evidence of design but you couldn't bring yourself to admit it,so you claimed it was evidence of macro-evolution. Really i got a good laugh out of it.
....

Anybody, even a child, can show another evidence of ID because ID is NOT FALSIFIABLE. All anyone has to say is "God did it".

.... Show me evidence that is convincing.

Duh ,show me your evidence ?

....

No evidence WOULD be convincing to you when you have your own theory that is ALWAYS right - "God did it".

....

Do i need to quote real scientists to show you macro-evolution has never been documented ?first you need to learn your own terms, don't be an Ideologue.

Are you trying to imply something?

If you are, that's all you have left; you're desperate.