Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Rapture Era]

Oh brother, you are supposed to have one and the same book aren't you? How is a poor atheist to keep track of all the different denominations and beliefs you people can manage to have based on one book?

And yet you quote them to support your belief! I like you Artie! Your funny!

 

[ArtieE]

Molecules to man.

"I have noticed that one of the new catch phrases in creationist circles is show me the evidence for evolution. They then continue you to say by evolution I mean molecules to man. Well this is extremely dishonest as a human never came from a molecule. Humans evolved from an ancestor who evolved from another ancestor who many many many generations before evolved from a basic cell.

In fact as any one with a basic knowledge of biology knows evolution in fact does not claim to know how life started ie. molecules to man. All evolution is defined as is: descent with modification."
I am an Atheist and this is why: Molecules to man is a fallacious argument

 

[Rapture Era]

Oh brother, you are supposed to have one and the same book aren't you? How is a poor atheist to keep track of all the different denominations and beliefs you people can manage to have based on one book?

Actually there is only one book. Over the centuries man in his foolishness has changed the words and meaning of the original, hence all of these offshoots. It is a shame and God himself said that if anyone does that, they will be accursed! Not a good situation to be in! They will pay for this because it is driving people away from what God wants all of us to know. Its the same ol story of telling someone something and have it go through 50 people. By the time it gets back to you its a completely different story from your original.

 

[ArtieE]

And yet you quote them to support your belief! I like you Artie! Your funny!

Yes, I thought it was funny quoting theists believing in evolution to theists who don't believe in evolution. It just shows how split theists are even though they use the same book.

 

[Rapture Era]

"I have noticed that one of the new catch phrases in creationist circles is show me the evidence for evolution. They then continue you to say by evolution I mean molecules to man. Well this is extremely dishonest as a human never came from a molecule. Humans evolved from an ancestor who evolved from another ancestor who many many many generations before evolved from a basic cell.

In fact as any one with a basic knowledge of biology knows evolution in fact does not claim to know how life started ie. molecules to man. All evolution is defined as is: descent with modification."
I am an Atheist and this is why: Molecules to man is a fallacious argument

Well Artie, you just made my point! You say humans never came from a molecule but they came from a cell. Isnt that what you said? So, where did the cell come from? What developed first from the cell? Heart? Blood? Brain? Blood vessels? Bones? Muscles? Skin? How does decent with modification figure this out unless there is intelligent DNA that sets out to build that model of you? God created human beings Artie and He created them male and female to reproduce with all of the wonderful things that a human being needs to survive and reproduce. Its that simple. Humans have to be complete from creation to be able to continue the life cycle. You are quoting Darwin's tree of life theory. As an atheist you have no choice but to believe this.

 

[ArtieE]

Well Artie, you just made my point! You say humans never came from a molecule but they came from a cell. Isnt that what you said? So, where did the cell come from? What developed first from the cell? Heart? Blood? Brain? Blood vessels? Bones? Muscles? Skin? How does decent with modification figure this out unless there is intelligent DNA that sets out to build that model of you? God created human beings Artie and He created them male and female to reproduce with all of the wonderful things that a human being needs to survive and reproduce. Its that simple. Humans have to be complete from creation to be able to continue the life cycle. You are quoting Darwin's tree of life theory. As an atheist you have no choice but to believe this.

I suppose all creation stories are simple explanations for simple people. Here is an interesting article. Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf Notice the difference between the language in this article and the language of Genesis. You will like that they are talking about "the invention of DNA" but there's no mention of a god I'm afraid. I don't pretend to understand this article in detail. I'm just using it to demonstrate the huge gulf between the Bible stories and what the geneticists are discussing. I suppose if God had written a book for geneticists this is the language he would have used to describe how he created all living organisms. Can you just imagine how valuable such a book would be for geneticists?

 

[Rapture Era]

I suppose all creation stories are simple explanations for simple people. Here is an interesting article. Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf Notice the difference between the language in this article and the language of Genesis. You will like that they are talking about "the invention of DNA" but there's no mention of a god I'm afraid. I don't pretend to understand this article in detail. I'm just using it to demonstrate the huge gulf between the Bible stories and what the geneticists are discussing. I suppose if God had written a book for geneticists this is the language he would have used to describe how he created all living organisms. Can you just imagine how valuable such a book would be for geneticists?

Thats a long read and I have to go to work. I'll read it tomorrow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So let me get this straight, you are saying as fact that we are related to apes based on similarities?

I am saying just based on looks alone that it is beyond obvious that we are related to apes. Further investigation of the genetic, genomic, anatomical and homologous evidence confirms that we are in fact, great apes, hence the reason we are classified as such. I'm saying I think you have to deny the obvious in order to assert that human beings and apes are not closely related.




Just at a cursory glance, it is rather obvious that we are closely related to apes. On a more detailed level, it becomes even more obvious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually there is only one book. Over the centuries man in his foolishness has changed the words and meaning of the original, hence all of these offshoots. It is a shame and God himself said that if anyone does that, they will be accursed! Not a good situation to be in! They will pay for this because it is driving people away from what God wants all of us to know. Its the same ol story of telling someone something and have it go through 50 people. By the time it gets back to you its a completely different story from your original.

How do you know that, having never seen the originals?

And how are you so sure you've got the right version?

 

[Rapture Era]

Thats a long read and I have to go to work. I'll read it tomorrow.

Thanks for the article Artie. First I would like to state that Madame Curie was an atheist or more likely an agnostic as the article states. This is important because it establishes her world view. The article was as most I have read on the subject but it covers many different areas and would be extremely difficult to comment on in this thread because of length. However, I would be more than happy to discuss them if we decide to take one item at a time.
Also, I would like to mention that the article is biased toward evolutionary belief, here are a few quotes from it.
"They should not only try to adapt their findings to current evolutionary theories, but also try to detect possibilities to check the validity of these theories in these findings."
"Up to now, most scientists interested in the studying of DNA replication have not been apparently concerned by the problem of the origin and evolution of this central cellular mechanism. The problem of the origin of DNA is also largely ignored, with few exceptions."
"The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of single and double-stranded DNA molecules."
Without stretching this out too long, basically scientists are taking what we know about DNA and biology and trying to adapt it to a world view of evolution. This is why they are having so much trouble reconciling what good science is showing us because they have such a huge problem of origins.
They will never be able to reconcile the two because only one world view is correct. Just like the Biologos people will never reconcile God being creator and millions of years, only one is correct. They have this "cant we all just get along" attitude and the answer is NO! God communicated this to us in the bible with what He did and how long it took Him to do it, 6 literal days. I dont understand Gods power to do what He does because I cannot fathom His ability to create the universe our planet and all life on our planet including human beings. But when you look at the evidence, it answers origins. God said He created seed bearing trees, fish, birds, cattle and all the creepy crawling things on the earth and what do we see? exactly that. The light that rules the day and the lesser light for night, sun and moon, we see that. Then He said He would create man in His image, male and female, what do we see? Male and female! And all life reproduces after their own kind just as God intended. This is amazingly obvious! But, if a person does not want to believe what God said He did, the alternative is the evolutionary process with decent of modification as we commonly understand it with its multiple fatal problems of origin as stated in this article. This has always been a stumbling block for evolutionary thinking which is why this very crucial fact is being ignored, origins that is. My point is, you cant ignore it. In order to have life as we know it from a common ancestor it had to start somehow at a molecular and cellular level and proceed forward. What science is revealing to us is that it cannot happen like many thought decades ago. This is why science is so important these days and why science is changing its stance as it should. The more facts science reveals, the more its stance changes and thats a good thing. Thats how we uncover the truth in many different areas. Thanks again for the article Artie.

 

[Rapture Era]

I am saying just based on looks alone that it is beyond obvious that we are related to apes. Further investigation of the genetic, genomic, anatomical and homologous evidence confirms that we are in fact, great apes, hence the reason we are classified as such. I'm saying I think you have to deny the obvious in order to assert that human beings and apes are not closely related.
Just at a cursory glance, it is rather obvious that we are closely related to apes. On a more detailed level, it becomes even more obvious.

"On a more detailed level, it becomes even more obvious"
Actually, on a more detailed level is where it becomes less obvious. If you would like to discuss this we can. But to keep us on track and not all over the map, lets pick one thing you think is the prime reason you believe we are related to apes. Any of the ones you mentioned above but only one for now, we can move to others but lets just discuss one at a time, its easier to stay focused that way.

 

[Rapture Era]

How do you know that, having never seen the originals?
And how are you so sure you've got the right version?

We have the Hebrew and Greek writings. The best way to spot a phony is to know the real one. Someone told me that about a dollar bill and it can be applied to everything. This is how we tell what has been altered.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"On a more detailed level, it becomes even more obvious"
Actually, on a more detailed level is where it becomes less obvious. If you would like to discuss this we can. But to keep us on track and not all over the map, lets pick one thing you think is the prime reason you believe we are related to apes. Any of the ones you mentioned above but only one for now, we can move to others but lets just discuss one at a time, its easier to stay focused that way.

If you have some evidence that contradicts the genetic, genomic, anatomical, homologous, and paleontological evidence, please go ahead and present it. Or better yet, write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal for peer review.

 

[Rapture Era]

If you have some evidence that contradicts the genetic, genomic, anatomical, homologous, and paleontological evidence, please go ahead and present it. Or better yet, write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal for peer review.

So I'm guessing you dont want to discuss any of the above?

 

[ArtieE]

Thanks for the article Artie.

Without stretching this out too long, basically scientists are taking what we know about DNA and biology and trying to adapt it to a world view of evolution.

They are trying to take what we know about DNA and biology to learn how we evolved. Full stop.

God said He created seed bearing trees, fish, birds, cattle and all the creepy crawling things on the earth and what do we see? exactly that. The light that rules the day and the lesser light for night, sun and moon, we see that. Then He said He would create man in His image, male and female, what do we see? Male and female! And all life reproduces after their own kind just as God intended. This is amazingly obvious!

ROTFL You are funny! People just wrote down what they saw and wrote a book where they claim God said he created it. If there were two moons in the sky they would have seen that and claimed in their book that God said he created one light ruling the day and two ruling the night. This is amazingly obvious!

 

[Rapture Era]

They are trying to take what we know about DNA and biology to learn how we evolved. Full stop.ROTFL You are funny! People just wrote down what they saw and wrote a book where they claim God created it. If there were two moons in the sky they would have seen that and claimed in their book that God created one light ruling the day and two ruling the night. This is amazingly obvious!

People just wrote down what they saw and wrote a book where they claim God created it.
This is a false statement Artie. You really dont know what you are talking about, but that is expected, I understand why you say these things.
If there were two moons in the sky they would have seen that and claimed in their book that God created one light ruling the day and two ruling the night.
You are stating hypotheticals here Artie, its worthless and you know it.
This is amazingly obvious!
What is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So I'm guessing you dont want to discuss any of the above?

Do you have some research that demonstrates that humans and apes are not closely related?

It's mind boggling to me that a human being can look at say, a chimpanzee or a gorilla and declare that we are not closely related. Nevermind when you get into the genetics of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? Did you hear what you just said? How do you think evolution started? What did it evolve from? What was its starting point? This is the critical thinking evolutionists dont want to talk about because science is proving that molecules cannot evolve into life much less anything that can reproduce no matter how much time you throw at it. When you start throwing time at this like millions and billions of years, there is a whole different set of problems that make the case for evolution worse. So where does that leave evolution? Dead thats where. When are these people going to wake up to the fact that evolution of molecules to man not only never happened but its impossible to happen. The very "Science" they adhere to is revealing that it is not possible. If you want to separate abiogenesis people from evolutions, tell me what the evolutionist believes, how is it that this whole process started? It had to start from something right? How does abiogenesis not play a part in the evolution faith?
Yes I know about the thiests who believe in evolution, thats another issue. Lets stick to this one for now. I am very interested in your answer(s)

"You can't say that Ohm's Law is correct unless you tell me how electrons were created."

"You can't say that evolution is correct without explaining abiogenesis."

Both statements make the same amount of sense.

 

[Rapture Era]

Do you have some research that demonstrates that humans and apes are not closely related?

It's mind boggling to me that a human being can look at say, a chimpanzee or a gorilla and declare that we are not closely related. Nevermind when you get into the genetics of it.

Nevermind when you get into the genetics of it? Are you serious? This is where it all happens! How can you blow it off like that?

"On a more detailed level, it becomes even more obvious"
Actually, on a more detailed level is where it becomes less obvious. If you would like to discuss this we can. But to keep us on track and not all over the map, lets pick one thing you think is the prime reason you believe we are related to apes. Any of the ones you mentioned above but only one for now, we can move to others but lets just discuss one at a time, its easier to stay focused that way.

You havent answered this yet, stop jumping around! What is your biggest and most powerful proof we are descendants from apes? Please be specific.

 

[Rapture Era]

"You can't say that Ohm's Law is correct unless you tell me how electrons were created."

"You can't say that evolution is correct without explaining abiogenesis."

Both statements make the same amount of sense.

Thank you! Great point!