• 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

Mythology cannot create a universe either.

The whole thing is nothing was created from nothing. How you define nothing is what gets tricky.

BUT, a current hypothesis that is credible is that a singularity created the universe. As it stands the universe is factually full of singularities.

So it is possible a supermassive black hole expanded into our universe and mythology is not required to ex[plain anything.

No need to define the word "nothing" it speaks for itself, you are deliberately suppressing the truth as the scriptures say you would.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an i
 
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

Wow, talk about a desperate man, after all that wast of money the E. coli remains E. coli. LOL that's laughable.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Says who, without a Biblical guide you can do anything you want, including being dishonest, if there is such a thing in your world view.
You mean being dishonest like claiming there is no evidence of something after someone has presented you with several websites worth of evidence of something?

The Bible doesn't make you honest - it just make you less likely to observe or acknowledge dishonesty in yourself. If you're convinced that what you believe is absolute truth by God-given decree, you feel justified in manipulating and distorting facts that don't fit that view, because you believe you cannot possibly be wrong. All you have done is mask your dishonesty to yourself.

Now, perhaps you can address the evidence I presented to you?
 
This is the problem.
The mountain of information supporting the science is huge. But you aren't willing to learn about it.
Tom

I'm asking for verifiable evidence of one change of kind to another, for example ape to human in the fossil record, or a half human half ape on film, it's been thousands of years and nobody has ever seen one, you would think with all our technology we would have seen one by now, hint, it never happened!

The so called evidence is huge, because the majority of the earth's population is choosing to suppress the truth as scripture says they would.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an i
 
You mean being dishonest like claiming there is no evidence of something after someone has presented you with several websites worth of evidence of something?

The Bible doesn't make you honest - it just make you less likely to observe or acknowledge dishonesty in yourself. If you're convinced that what you believe is absolute truth by God-given decree, you feel justified in manipulating and distorting facts that don't fit that view, because you believe you cannot possibly be wrong. All you have done is mask your dishonesty to yourself.

Now, perhaps you can address the evidence I presented to you?

How can I distort verifiable evidence if I have never seen any?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I'm asking for verifiable evidence of one change of kind to another, for example ape to human in the fossil record,
Firstly, humans are not a "different kind" to apes. Humans are a category of ape, so your question is ill-formed.

If you're looking for evidence of human/ape ancestry, then here:

List of human evolution fossils:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human/ape chromosome 2:
Chromosome fusion

Endogenous retroviral inserts:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

or a half human half ape on film, it's been thousands of years and nobody has ever seen one, you would think with all our technology we would have seen one by now, hint, it never happened!
You don't understand how evolution works. Nothing is ever "half-one-thing-half-another". It's always a complete creature belonging to its particular phyla. Humans are fully apes. Everything apes produce are fully apes. What we are are a VARIATION of apes. This is why apes produce apes, but chimpanzees cannot produce humans despite the fact that they are both apes - because chimpanzees produce chimpanzees and humans produce humans. However, at one point, a common ancestor between us (who was an ape) divided into multiple populations - one of which became the apes known as humans and the other became apes known as chimpanzees. There was no "half-ape half-chimpanzee" or "half-ape half-human". Humans and chimpanzees are both apes because we both come from apes. We are fully apes.

Do you understand?

The so called evidence is huge, because the majority of the earth's population is choosing to suppress the truth as scripture says they would.
Inventing conspiracy theories does nothing but make your own position look more silly.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
How can I distort verifiable evidence if I have never seen any?
I presented you with three websites with reams of information in them. If you haven't seen any, then I can only assume you aren't bothering to actually read the things I post. Its not surprising that you reject something that you clearly make no effort to understand.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
How can I distort verifiable evidence if I have never seen any?

You didn't distort anything. You have yet to even acknowledge or address any contention with the points of others in any way. Of course, this is not surprising, at it's pretty obvious that you neither interest in debate, nor have any idea what evolution is.
 
Firstly, humans are not a "different kind" to apes. Humans are a category of ape, so your question is ill-formed.

If you're looking for evidence of human/ape ancestry, then here:

List of human evolution fossils:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human/ape chromosome 2:
Chromosome fusion

Endogenous retroviral inserts:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4


You don't understand how evolution works. Nothing is ever "half-one-thing-half-another". It's always a complete creature belonging to its particular phyla. Humans are fully apes. Everything apes produce are fully apes. What we are are a VARIATION of apes. This is why apes produce apes, but chimpanzees cannot produce humans despite the fact that they are both apes - because chimpanzees produce chimpanzees and humans produce humans. However, at one point, a common ancestor between us (who was an ape) divided into multiple populations - one of which became the apes known as humans and the other became apes known as chimpanzees. There was no "half-ape half-chimpanzee" or "half-ape half-human". Humans and chimpanzees are both apes because we both come from apes. We are fully apes.

Do you understand?


Inventing conspiracy theories does nothing but make your own position look more silly.

Still no verifiable evidence.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Still no verifiable evidence.
Are you reading the pages I've posted? How are fossils not verifiable? How are genetics and retroviral inserts not verifiable?

What do you think "verifiable evidence" actually is? What would "verifiable evidence" of evolution actually look like, to you?
 
You mean being dishonest like claiming there is no evidence of something after someone has presented you with several websites worth of evidence of something?

The Bible doesn't make you honest - it just make you less likely to observe or acknowledge dishonesty in yourself. If you're convinced that what you believe is absolute truth by God-given decree, you feel justified in manipulating and distorting facts that don't fit that view, because you believe you cannot possibly be wrong. All you have done is mask your dishonesty to yourself.

Now, perhaps you can address the evidence I presented to you?

In your world view without a guide it's OK to torture babies for pleasure.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
The so called evidence is huge, because the majority of the earth's population is choosing to suppress the truth as scripture says they would.

That's all I needed. No need to debate with you. Anything that is contrary to what you believe is just evidence to you that the entirety of the world is a corrupt conspiracy trying to crush belief in God.

Hilarious that in a thread called, "Demanding scientific evidence for the existence of God is ridiculous" you focus on demanding scientific evidence for the existence of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories in history, and then completely ignore it.

Unfortunately for you, your book isn't evidence to anyone else about the nature of existence. So no one cares about your objections because they have nothing to do with science, philosophy, or thought in general.

The so called evidence is huge, and the majority of the earth's population chooses to suppress truth.

It seems more likely that your church group have a more invested interest in suppressing truth. And they are the minority. A fringe minority suppress the truth. You tithed them. I don't pay anyone for evolution. I have no vested interest in whether evolution is true or not, because whether evolution is true or not, God still doesn't exist.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
In your world view without a guide it's OK to torture babies for pleasure.
What????

That has literally nothing to do with anything that I said!

I have asked you some very direct and reasonable questions. What do you think "verifiable evidence" is? Why is the information I have presented to you not "verifiable evidence" of evolution?

And, for the record, no it's not okay to torture babies for pleasure. And if you sincerely think the only thing preventing you from doing that is your particular religious belief, then you are a sick, immoral human being.
 
Top