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

[LuisDantas]

What does education have to do with it? Are you a biologists??? If the answer is no, then we are on the same level. But, even if you were, no biologists can prove evolution with science, as evolution is not part of science, but part of a religion.

You have no idea of how deeply mistaken that statement is.

 

[McBell]

You have no idea of how deeply mistaken that statement is.

Yes he does.
On this forum alone it has been explained to him numerous times.

Now the question is how many times does it have to be explained to him before his comments like the above are nothing more than lies?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is why I said I needed someone to tell me what # is one less than infinity. If you can do that the rest is easy

This is impossible to do because infinity is not a # , so there is no way a # can be less than something that isn't a #.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have no idea of how deeply mistaken that statement is.

Oh, so you've seen an animal produce a different kind of animal?? Did you conduct an experiment that would lead you to such results? Well, the answer is obviously no to both questions, yet, my statement was mistaken?? :no:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes he does.
On this forum alone it has been explained to him numerous times.

Now the question is how many times does it have to be explained to him before his comments like the above are nothing more than lies?

Hey Mest, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. I don't believe in the religion of evolution that states otherwise, sorry.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you really still going at this?!

Call_of_the_Wild, have you ever heard of small changes?

Yes, small changes that would lead to variation within the same kind of animal. This is what we see. To go beyond this is religious implementing.

Yes dog produce dog, but the puppy is not an exact copy of any of its parents. It is SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT from its parents. When that dog has puppies those are again going to be dogs but again dogs that are slightly different from its parents.

First of all, you have to explain to me what you mean by "slightly different". Maybe you did that below...

Over many generations all these little differences add up.
let us call the first dog 'dog 1' and the decendent which we are looking at many generations later 'dog x'
many generations later 'dog x' will still have offspring which is slightly different from 'dog x', but could be VERY DIFFERENT from 'dog 1'

You can claim that 'dog x' is still a dog even if it is very differnt from 'dog 1' simply because it is a descendant of 'dog 1', but that would be like claiming that you are an Australopithecus.

Once again, no one is arguing that there are changes, but there are limits to the changes. The example you gave with the dogs, notice that the dog never changed to a different kind of animal. It remained a dog. Second, you mentioned Australopithecus, now I for one second don't believe humans evolved from apes. Never will believe in that. BUT, lets say for a second that Australopithecus were humans/humanoids..guess what, that is still making my point for me. There are limitations in the change. This is completely different than saying the Australopithecus evolved in to a bear, which is a concept that the evolutionists have to embrace, since we "all share a common ancestor".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So answer my question. Which two points are an infinite distance away from each other? (And don't use a tautology like the last time.) If you can tell me, I can answer your question.

There are no two points on an infinite scale. Now please take the time to answer my question, as your dodging of the question is becoming very apparent.

 

[PolyHedral]

There are no two points on an infinite scale. Now please take the time to answer my question, as your dodging of the question is becoming very apparent.

Therefore, you cannot stand an infinite distance away from me, and your question is nonsensical.

 

[adi2d]

This is impossible to do because infinity is not a # , so there is no way a # can be less than something that isn't a #.

That's why I think its a waste to spend time arguing about this. We are here now so its obvious we traveled the time to get here. Nobody KNOWS how. We all have ideas how we got here but if there was time before our universe started or not is open to many thoughts. Not sure how this fits into proof or disproof of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, so you've seen an animal produce a different kind of animal??

As a matter of fact, yes I did. Every time I saw a litter of kittens be born, for one.

While I anticipate that you will want to counter that they are all cats and therefore "the same kind" of animal, the distinction is arbitrary, and the cumulative differences among generations do indeed produce different species.

Did you conduct an experiment that would lead you to such results? Well, the answer is obviously no to both questions, yet, my statement was mistaken?? :no:

Take better care with your certainties, else you might lessen them further.

 

[outhouse]

Yes he does.
On this forum alone it has been explained to him numerous times.

Now the question is how many times does it have to be explained to him before his comments like the above are nothing more than lies?

repitition breaks down resistance


but here your trying to overcome wilful ignorance, not knowledge and understanding



im glad you have the patients I dont

 

[lunakilo]

Once again, no one is arguing that there are changes, but there are limits to the changes.

The total change is the sum of all the changes over time, so the only limit I can think of here is time.
If you don't look at changes over enough time, the sum of the changes will not be very large.
The longer the time period the larger the the sum of changes is possible; no limit.

The example you gave with the dogs, notice that the dog never changed to a different kind of animal. It remained a dog.

Yes, a dog is a creature which is alive today, so the 'dog x' would be a creature that has not evolved yet.
All descendants of dogs which are alive today still remains dogs (though some of them look more like rats )
The point of that thought experiment was to explain some basics of evolution.

Second, you mentioned Australopithecus, now I for one second don't believe humans evolved from apes. Never will believe in that. BUT, lets say for a second that Australopithecus were humans/humanoids..guess what, that is still making my point for me.

Again you are correct; humans did not evolve from apes.
Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, and as far as I remember Australopithecus is part of the line which leads to humans, that is, Australopithecus lived after the split between man and ape occurred. But Australopithecus was not human. The changes which occurred between Australopithecus and Human is an example of the 'dog 1' to 'dog x' described above, or perhaps more correctly the changes between 'Hominini 1' to 'Hominini x'.
Where 'Hominini x' is so different from 'Hominini 1' that most people would agree that they are not the same species.

If you insist that Australopithecus is the same species (or perhaps the same kind?) as humans, then the same argument would hold if you go back another few million years from Australopithecus. You would then end up back before the split between man and ape.
You would end up back with the guys who were the ancestors of all the creatures included in the Homininae subfamily.
And again using the same argument all their offspring would be of the same kind, and so would all their current living descendants, that includes all humans, gorillas and chimpanzees.

I kind of like chimpanzees, especially bonobos, so I don't mind adding those guys to the family. After all we share at least 98% of our dna, but I would not claim that we are of the same species.

So here you have an example of 'Homininae 1' evolving over millions of years into humans, gorillas and chimpanzees, all of which are different species.

There are limitations in the change. This is completely different than saying the Australopithecus evolved in to a bear, which is a concept that the evolutionists have to embrace, since we "all share a common ancestor".

See, this is where you display your ignorance if evolution.

Australopithecus did not evolve in to a ape, not did it evolve in to a bear.
I don't know how many millions of years you have to go back to find a common ancestor of Humans and bears, but you would have to go a lot further back than Australopithecus.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Therefore, you cannot stand an infinite distance away from me, and your question is nonsensical.

So, if I cant stand an infinite distance away from you, then how can time come from an infinite distance to reach the present moment?? The question was only to illustrate how absurd an actual infinity was if it DID exist. So, you've just made my point as to why an actual infinite cant exist, so therefore time cant be past eternal, and this is for the very same reason that you said that I cant stand an infinite distance away from you. Thank you, even though you just made my original point anyway.

 

[starlite]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.”—Sir Bernard Lovell.[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster,” said Lovell, “then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Consider this....[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]two forces operate in the nucleus of an atom, and they give ample evidence of forethought. Consider the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]strong[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]nuclear[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]force,[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] which glues protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this bonding, various elements can form—light ones (such as helium and oxygen) and heavy ones (such as gold and lead). It seems that if this binding force were a mere 2-percent weaker, only hydrogen would exist. Conversely, if this force were slightly stronger, only heavier elements, but no hydrogen, could be found. Would our lives be affected? Well, if the universe lacked hydrogen, our sun would not have the fuel it needs to radiate life-giving energy. And, of course, we would have no water or food, since hydrogen is an essential ingredient of both.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The weak nuclear force, controls radioactive decay. It also affects thermonuclear activity in our sun. ‘Is this force fine-tuned?’ you might ask. Mathematician and physicist Freeman Dyson explains: “The weak [force] is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak [force] were much stronger or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would again be in difficulties.” Yes, this precise rate of burning keeps our earth warm—but not incinerated—and keeps us alive.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This is just a couple of examples that give evidence of a Creator....where did this fine-tuning and precision come from?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Research from a publication called “Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?”[/FONT]

 

[PolyHedral]

So, if I cant stand an infinite distance away from you, then how can time come from an infinite distance to reach the present moment??

Because there is no distance. Every event is a finite time from every other event.

Example: Name an integer. If I start counting from zero, I will get to that number eventually. It doesn't matter how big your number is, or how fast I count - I will get there in some finite amount of time.

“If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning.”—Sir Bernard Lovell.

Nonsense. You might as well ask what's north of the North pole, or the latitude and longitude of Mars.

 

[idav]

You might as well ask what's north of the North pole, or the latitude and longitude of Mars.

I think it is more about where the singularity came from. Like the chicken egg question. What came first space or energy?

 

[McBell]

I think it is more about where the singularity came from. Like the chicken egg question. What came first space or energy?

ooo
ooo

I know
I know


God came first!

Class dismissed.

 

[idav]

ooo
ooo

I know
I know


God came first!

Class dismissed.

Well thanks for clearing that up, lol.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's why I think its a waste to spend time arguing about this. We are here now so its obvious we traveled the time to get here. Nobody KNOWS how. We all have ideas how we got here but if there was time before our universe started or not is open to many thoughts. Not sure how this fits into proof or disproof of God.

Yeah, we traveled through time, but we didn't travel through infinite time. That is the difference.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As a matter of fact, yes I did. Every time I saw a litter of kittens be born, for one.

So, when you saw litters of kittens born, they were born from a cat, right? Hmmm, makes me wonder why we are having this discussion.

While I anticipate that you will want to counter that they are all cats and therefore "the same kind" of animal, the distinction is arbitrary, and the cumulative differences among generations do indeed produce different species.

As long as the species that will generate down the line remains a cat, then I don't think me and you have any disagreements here. You said what I said in a nut shell, that cats produce cats. No disagreements here.