• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Demanding scientific evidence for the existence of God is ridiculous

outhouse

Atheistically
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

  1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
  3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
  4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
 
Factually not credible outside mythology.



Well that is a position from lack of knowledge as you admit you don't know anything about the science.



Read the wiki link.

It is not our job to teach someone who refuses to learn

I'll take that as a no, great faith is required to believe something came from nothing!

What Wiki link?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I'll take that as a no, great faith is required to believe something came from nothing!

What Wiki link?
How do you know that there was "nothing" before the Big-Bang? We don't know what there was at that point, so it seems incredibly foolish to make the assumption that anyone has faith that "something came from nothing", simply because we don't know.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I simply ask for verifiable evidence for evolution, but nobody seems to have any, it requires great faith to believe something came from nothing.
It is kind of an unreasonable question to ask for "verifiable evidence for evolution". It would be a very drawn out and lengthy comment to say the least. I would love to provide you with verifiable evidence, which there is a plethora of, but can you be more specific. What part of evolution do you have issue with? What concept do you have trouble believing specifically?

Also, why does "something from nothing" have anything to do with evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory (which, by definition, means "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation". So, by definition, there is verifiable evidence, or it wouldn't have earned that moniker); one that deals with the process by which organisms adapt to their environment over billions of years, not with the origin of life. So, I fail to see why you would claim that evolution in any way claims that something came from nothing. But, maybe you can help me understand what you are implying with that statement.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I only ask for verifiable evidence for evolution, but nobody seems to have any, it requires great faith to believe something came from nothing.
Why would you ask for evidence of evolution in a thread that's not about evolution?

It's a distraction from the real issue here: that the evidence for God is so poor that theists have to do extreme mental gymnastics to attempt to explain this shortcoming.
 
Factually not credible outside mythology.



Well that is a position from lack of knowledge as you admit you don't know anything about the science.



Read the wiki link.

It is not our job to teach someone who refuses to learn

I'm sorry but I'm not willing to go through such a vast resource to supposedly find some verifiable evidence. If you are familiar with the material, then please copy and past something we can verify.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Isn't "kinds" where seagulls get lumped with bats because they both fly, but not ostriches because they don't?
Tom
And where grasshoppers get lumped with elephants because they both
I'm sorry but I'm not willing to go through such a vast resource to supposedly find some verifiable evidence. If you are familiar with the material, then please copy and past something we can verify.
Why bother when your response is always

3fvw.jpg
 
How do you know that there was "nothing" before the Big-Bang? We don't know what there was at that point, so it seems incredibly foolish to make the assumption that anyone has faith that "something came from nothing", simply because we don't know.

No matter how you slice it, it's not possible for humans to create a universe with nothing.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:


    • In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
    • Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
    • Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
    • Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

outhouse

Atheistically
What evidence do you have for mythology creating anything?

You have NO evidence at all for your opinion.

We have facts not mythology.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I simply ask for verifiable evidence for evolution, but nobody seems to have any, it requires great faith to believe something came from nothing.


A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. colinormally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?
By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram Luis ji

Since you are asking me directly, Ratikala: it usually begins by making the concept the sustaining piece of a doctrine.

It is just not at all suited for such an important role.

I believe you are hoping for a very different answer, but that is mine.

I am hoping for no more than that you might considder a point .....?


I don't know what you mean by "entension" here, but if it involves blind belief it is just not something I am interested on.

I mean extend one self ; meaning go beyond ones comfort zone for the purpose of contemplation (this does not require blind faith), ...and in this instance I mean extend yourself , ...by giving consideration to any given point instead of blanking it by pretending you do not know what I mean , ....




not one Scientist or atheist is alike each seeks to answer his own questions so there should not be a solid ''we'' who are demanding , ...but there are some that do seek such eveidence , but even amnngst those that do seek evedence each will do so for different reasons
Such arrogance, Ratikala.

please re read the passage you have quoted and explain to me where the arogance is in this statment ???
 
Top