Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[ArtieE]

1. Any two or more organisms that have similar genetic makeup is evidence for evolution.

2. Humans and apes have similar genetic makeup

3. Therefore, Humans evolved from apes

This is clearly illogical, as the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Yes it is illogical because that is not what evolution says. It says we have common ancestors.

I don't think there could be that much variation for an animal to produce offspring that is different than what it is. That is why I've said there are limits to the variation. There are limits to the change. From my religion, God said in Gen 1:24 "Let the land bring forth creatures according to their kind". There is a dog kind, a cat kind, a bear kind, a snake kind, a bird kind....each animal is limited to their own kind.

The Bible clearly states that a kind can be at the level of species. Biblical Kind Either God produced the "kind" birds and then they evolved and speciated into different species of herons and vultures and ravens and hawks that can't reproduce with each other and if so you have evolution, or he made every single species by hand which means that there would have to have been at least 13 million animals on the Ark because there are around 6.5 million species of land animals on the Earth today. And you would have to add all the extinct species including dinosaurs. Which is it?

Do you believe that your god personally made a T-Rex along with all the other dinosaurs, then decided to wipe them out and then personally started to make elephants etc? Or do you believe T-Rex ate elephants?

We share 98-99 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees. Did your god make chimpanzees separately? Did he then start over again and produce human DNA or did he just take the chimpanzee DNA and tweaked it until he produced a human?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, turtles produce turtles....

... None of which contradicts evolution theory. What do you think evolution says?

Similarities in genetic makeup could easily mean common designer. That is my theory.

That's not a theory, it's an assumption. It's completely unfalsifiable, since DNA could have shown absolute disparity between species - thus indicating that common ancestry is false - and you could still claim this as evidence of design. Shared DNA is evidence of evolution, since it shows that all life shares common genetic traits, which is precisely what we would find if all life evolved over time from common ancestry through genetic mutation and natural selection. It also clearly shows common ancestry through retroviral DNA inserts, which are commonly shared on the exact same genetic bases between species that evolution predicts share a common ancestor. The closer evolution predicted the link to be, sure enough, the more retroviral inserts were shared. Considering the possibility that two separate species would be infected by the two separate viruses and leave the exact same retroviral insert on the exact same genetic base is one in several billion, this clearly indicates that both species share a common genetic ancestry.

You can't prove or disprove my theory.

Which is why it's not science.

..you cant even prove your theory.

Theories are never "proven" in science. Basic terminology.

You are basically saying...

1. Any two or more organisms that have similar genetic makeup is evidence for evolution.

It's far more complicated than that. Not only is it similar genetic makeup, it conforms exactly to evolutionary predictions. Evolution predicted we share common ancestors with contemporary apes, and sure enough we have a closer genetic similarity to apes than any other species. Evolution predicted that all mammals share common ancestry. Sure enough, the further down the tree we go we find less and less genetic similarity. Our supposed distant ancestors have less genetics in common with us than those that evolution predicted are our closer ancestors. Keep in mind that this was all predicted before the genetic similarities were unearthed. If you don't consider that evidence, then you don't know what evidence is in science.

2. Humans and apes have similar genetic makeup

3. Therefore, Humans evolved from apes

This is clearly illogical, as the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

What's clearly illogical here is this analogy, which doesn't even make any sense.

There is no "fossil record".

Here's a fairly good database:

The Fossil Record 2 - Palaeontology and Biodiversity Research Group, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol

When you find a fossil, if you determine anything other than "something has died", then you've left science and resorted to religion.

That is a profoundly nonsensical thing to say. What you're basically saying is that science cannot draw any conclusions about anything from anything. So you're just going to ignore DNA, dating methods, geology and archaeology? Nobody can look at any object or item and determine anything other than that it exists? So how do you go about reaching a conclusion that God exists by looking at the world? By your logic, the existence of life indicates nothing more than that life exists. If scientists, particularly scientists in the field of fossil research, cannot draw any conclusions from fossils other than "that something has died" then you, I or anybody else cannot draw any conclusions about anything from anything. Honestly, what an absurd thing to say.

You don't know whether that fossil had any children, and you certainly don't know if the fossil had DIFFERENT children.

Life reproduces. We look at the fossil record. We see a slow change in morphology from early life forms to later ones. Are you suggesting that none (or most) of these organisms didn't reproduce and all this gradual change is purely accidental?

That isn't the question at hand. Are you lacking in reading comprehension skills? How many times have I said "there are many kinds of dogs....big dogs...little dogs....hairy dogs...tall dogs...short dogs...but they are all DOGS"....I've said this on at least two other occasions. No one is denying this, because this can be OBSERVED...this can be TESTED...only a fool would deny this. The point is, that is the limit of the variation. You will always get a dog when you mate dogs. My point is, to say or believe that the dogs of today "evolved" from a non-dog of yesterday is purely religious speculation. No evidence whatsoever. And that is what you have to believe, if you believe in evolution.

So, you've just ignored everything I've explained for the third time.

Very well then, goodbye.

 

[otokage007]

We dont even need to get in to much detail about wolves. There had to be a first dog right?? The first dog that ever walked this earth....where did it come from?? A non-dog?? I rest my case.

Dogs always give birth to dogs. But as I tried to explain to u, evolution doesn't state the contrary. The only problem here is that you simply have failed miserably in your attempt to understand the basis of evolution theory.

 

[Breathe]

The only problem here is that you simply have failed miserably in your attempt to understand the basis of evolution theory.

This got me thinking.

Has anyone here, ever met a creationist who had even a moderate understanding of evolution?

 

[otokage007]

This got me thinking.

Has anyone here, ever met a creationist who had even a moderate understanding of evolution?

Definitely not me.

 

[McBell]

how did this debate get sidetracked to evolution.???

someone got rather uncomfortable with the direction the other tangent was going so made a bold and flat out wrong claim about evolution in order to divert attention away from their discomfort of the other tangent.

lets keep the thread on topic

good luck

 

[McBell]

This got me thinking.

Has anyone here, ever met a creationist who had even a moderate understanding of evolution?

Yes, I have.

Seems to me there is even one or two right here on RF.

 

[McBell]

No, it hasn't been proven. What is your best evidence in favor of evolution??? I want to see what you have.

No you don't.
You have made this claim several times already, but then ignore what you do not have a bull **** cookie cutter come back for.

Now what you have above, people, is the typical answer that an evolutionist will give when a skeptic questions the theory. They accuse you of not knowing evolution is lol. Thats funny. So let me get this straight, are you telling me that the theory of evolution doesn't state that every species of animal that ever lived ALL share a common ancestor??? So, if all dogs came from a wolf, then whatever the wolf came from was not a dog, thus, and animal producing another animal that is different than what it is. That is evolution, but it hasn't bee observed, it is believed by faith. It is a religion, not science.

You have done nothing more with this rant than show that you are not the least bit interested in truth or facts.

Good show.

 

[seth phoenix]

its difficult to prove something that is not defined. the best answer is that the god we imagine is our own creation of the mind. to perceive the true nature of god, one has to transcend time and existence itself, which is difficult for starters. its like the TRUMAN SHOW.. By Jim Carrey

 

[Storm]

Yes, I have.

Seems to me there is even one or two right here on RF.

I don't recall any, but that means little.

 

[jtartar]

Science and the Scientific Method are terrific tools for obtaining a better understanding of the Natural Universe. Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe? Can it be used to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty, God, supernatural forces or anything else which exists beyond our Natural Universe? I think not, but this article tries to make it sound like it can: Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

Obviously the author of the article, Austin Cline, is a bit biased, but he is also smart enough to try focus most of his words narrowly yet he leaves the unstated impression that science can absolutely prove that God does not exist. Here he quotes Victor Stenger:






Note narrow definition of God and his point "as defined". While he is correct within his narrow parameters, to extrapolate that idea to say "God does not exist" is beyond scientific capability. Even the "high priest" of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, admits "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable". Fine. He guesses God is improbable but, as a scientist who is fully knowledgeable of the limitations of Science, he "cannot know for certain". If Dawkins can't know for certain, then why does a non-scientist Austin Cline believe he can know for certain?

Road Warrior,
Leaving God out of an understanding of creation is comparable to Einstein
leaving the C out of his Energy formula.
God Himself says that not clearly seeing Him in the creation is without excuse, Rom 1:20.
It is rather comical to me that we have several branches of science that try to imitate natural things, and when they succeed in making a vastly inferior copy of natural things they are hailed as great, but the ONE who really created the things copied is not even acknowledged. Pseudoscientists like these are, at best morosophs, and really can they be trusted?? Remember the many Improbations of the past, when pseudoscientists falsified evidence to make things appear as something it was NOT.

 

[Pozessed]

Science tends to ignore what it can't explain. Therefore how can modern science explain God when it blatantly ignores even the possibility of God?

Say I'm studying a spiderweb and how it's created. I am terrified of spiders so I ignore the spider in the web all together.
Does that mean the spider didn't create the web? Of course not, it just means I ignored the spider long enough to do my study but that doesn't give me a right to say the spider doesn't exist.

 

[ArtieE]

It is rather comical to me that we have several branches of science that try to imitate natural things, and when they succeed in making a vastly inferior copy of natural things they are hailed as great, but the ONE who really created the things copied is not even acknowledged.

That is because we know how the ancient Hebrew made up their gods and to attribute anything to a god we know how was made up is pretty illogical don't you think?

[youtube]MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube]
A History of God​

Pseudoscientists like these are, at best morosophs, and really can they be trusted?? Remember the many Improbations of the past, when pseudoscientists falsified evidence to make things appear as something it was NOT.

Like Christians falsify relics you mean? The Medieval Relic Trade

 

[ArtieE]

Science tends to ignore what it can't explain. Therefore how can modern science explain God when it blatantly ignores even the possibility of God?

There's nothing to ignore. There isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of any god.

Say I'm studying a spiderweb and how it's created. I am terrified of spiders so I ignore the spider in the web all together. Does that mean the spider didn't create the web? Of course not, it just means I ignored the spider long enough to do my study but that doesn't give me a right to say the spider doesn't exist.

Here's a list of 108 creator gods. Christians say that 107 of these creator gods don't exist. Atheists say that 108 of these gods don't exist. So Christians shouldn't speak loudly about ignoring gods because they themselves ignore 107 of them.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There's nothing to ignore. There isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of any god.

No evidence, hmmm, well what is your best refutation of the kalam cosmological argument?? It never fails...atheists claim there is no evidence, and then they offer these weak refutations of the evidence that is actually presented. Once you refute the kalam cosmological argument, which is my "evidence" for a Creator, then you may be on to something.

Here's a list of 108 creator gods. Christians say that 107 of these creator gods don't exist. Atheists say that 108 of these gods don't exist. So Christians shouldn't speak loudly about ignoring gods because they themselves ignore 107 of them.

Christians believe a all powerful God created the universe and its inhabitants. Atheists believe that the universe and its inhabitants originated from a mindless, blind, and chaotic process. I am at a loss at how people can believe that intelligence can come from nonintelligence. Intelligence is the ability to think and learn, how can beings that have the ability to think and learn have originated from a process that doesn't have the ability to think or learn. So yes, Christians believe in 107 out of those 108 Gods, and we feel as if the most logical/plausible explanation is that were are here because of a supernatural Creator, not because of some voo doo science.

 

[ArtieE]

No evidence, hmmm, well what is your best refutation of the kalam cosmological argument?? It never fails...atheists claim there is no evidence, and then they offer these weak refutations of the evidence that is actually presented. Once you refute the kalam cosmological argument, which is my "evidence" for a Creator, then you may be on to something.

It has been debunked so many times that I've lost count. Here are two versions:

Craig's unsupported premise
Kalam Cosmological Argument Premise

Christians believe in 107 out of those 108 Gods, and we feel as if the most logical/plausible explanation is that were are here because of a supernatural Creator, not because of some voo doo science.

You believe in 107 out of those 108 Gods? Actually, voo doo has nothing to do with science. Voodoo is a religion. Do you believe in that religion too?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes it is illogical because that is not what evolution says. It says we have common ancestors.

There is no evidence for common ancestry. Just like you say there is no evidence for God, I don't believe there is any evidence for evolution/common ancestry. And I am not talking about speciation, I am talking about large scale evolution. If you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, then you've adopted a religion, because there is no evidence of any animal producing a different kind of animal.....dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

The Bible clearly states that a kind can be at the level of species. Biblical Kind Either God produced the "kind" birds and then they evolved and speciated into different species of herons and vultures and ravens and hawks that can't reproduce with each other and if so you have evolution

Right, you just said it yourself. "God produced the kind birds and then they evolved and speciated into different species...." That is small scale evolution, or "microevolution"...and of course "microevolution" is a lousy term but it helps distinguish between the small scale concept and the large scale concept. What you just described is microevolution. That is science. We can see it happening. But what we can't see happening is the first bird originating from a non-bird. That is what we cant see. The point is, just as I said about dogs, if you believe that the very first "bird" that walked/flew on this earth originated from a non-bird, then you've just left the realm of science and resorted to your evolutionary religion.

, or he made every single species by hand which means that there would have to have been at least 13 million animals on the Ark because there are around 6.5 million species of land animals on the Earth today. And you would have to add all the extinct species including dinosaurs. Which is it?

First of all, the bible say that God told Noah to get two of ever kind of animal, which would be like saying, "Get two dogs, get two cats, get two sheep, get two bears", so there are two animals within the "dog kind, cat kind, sheep kind, bear kind". That is not to say get two animals of every single SPECIES.

Do you believe that your god personally made a T-Rex along with all the other dinosaurs, then decided to wipe them out and then personally started to make elephants etc? Or do you believe T-Rex ate elephants?

I believe that God made all of the animals within the six day creation event that is recorded in Genesis.

We share 98-99 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees. Did your god make chimpanzees separately?

According to Genesis, God made the animals on the fifth day, and humans on the sixth day. So yes, separately.

Did he then start over again and produce human DNA or did he just take the chimpanzee DNA and tweaked it until he produced a human?

The DNA is just the blueprint of what makes humans....humans...and chimpanzees...chimps...to me, this is evidence of a common designer. God, being the creator/engineer, used the same blueprint that he made with animals to make humans. It worked...if it aint broke, don't fix it. The codes in DNA holds more information than all of the computer programs ever written by man.....combined. Now if you believe that the complexity of your computer suggests intelligent design, would it then follow than anything more complex than your computer also suggest intelligent design??? Obviously so, but of course you will not admit it because...after all, this would resort to intelligent design, and no, you can't have that, right? :no:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It has been debunked so many times that I've lost count. Here are two versions:

Craig's unsupported premise
Kalam Cosmological Argument Premise

I could just as easily post material that supports the kalam. I want you to tell me what is YOUR best refutation of the kalam.

You believe in 107 out of those 108 Gods? Actually, voo doo has nothing to do with science. Voodoo is a religion. Do you believe in that religion too?

You missed the point

 

[otokage007]

No evidence, hmmm, well what is your best refutation of the kalam cosmological argument?? It never fails...atheists claim there is no evidence, and then they offer these weak refutations of the evidence that is actually presented. Once you refute the kalam cosmological argument, which is my "evidence" for a Creator, then you may be on to something.

An argument is just an argument. Not evidence of any kind. This seems quite difficult for you to accept. You don't have to stop believing in God, but you have to change your way of thinking budy!

Christians believe a all powerful God created the universe and its inhabitants.

Lots of christians believe God created an universal common ancester and, from there, life evolved. So in this case, God did not create the inhabitants, just the first form of life.

Atheists believe that the universe and its inhabitants originated from a mindless, blind, and chaotic process. I am at a loss at how people can believe that intelligence can come from nonintelligence. Intelligence is the ability to think and learn, how can beings that have the ability to think and learn have originated from a process that doesn't have the ability to think or learn.

You just have to be more open minded. It may sound ilogical that nonintelligence can give birth to intelligence, but think about it, stones can also give birth to sky scrappers, which is actually impressive.

So yes, Christians believe in 107 out of those 108 Gods, and we feel as if the most logical/plausible explanation is that were are here because of a supernatural Creator, not because of some voo doo science.

It isn't rational to get stuck in your position: "This is the most logical therefore this happened this way". That's a highly irrational way of thinking. You have to think like this: evidence points towards this, so even if this is not logical for me, maybe I am wrong.

 

[ArtieE]

If you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, then you've adopted a religion, because there is no evidence of any animal producing a different kind of animal.....dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Except that the gray wolf produced the dog so there goes that theory out the window... if only dogs can produce dogs obviously the gray wolf couldn't have produced dogs.

First of all, the bible say that God told Noah to get two of ever kind of animal, which would be like saying, "Get two dogs, get two cats, get two sheep, get two bears", so there are two animals within the "dog kind, cat kind, sheep kind, bear kind". That is not to say get two animals of every single SPECIES.

I thought you said that God didn't say get two dogs but two wolves and that wolves would evolve into dogs later?

The DNA is just the blueprint of what makes humans....humans...and chimpanzees...chimps...to me, this is evidence of a common designer. God,

Why the Christian God and not any of the other creator gods? You're not the only person who have made up gods and said that those made up gods created stuff you know...