God is disproven by science? Really?

[blü 2]

When I look at the Biblical account of Creation in Genesis and then rest of the Bible through Revelation and compare this other scenario here Humanity's Journey, from the Big Bang to the Present (Op-Ed).

Does it ever cross your mind to wonder how you go about creating a universe?

Or do you just accept uncritically that some beings can perform magic?

Oh, and have you performed any human sacrifices since we last spoke? Did they go smoothly and well? Were they well received like you'd hoped?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think those people who support Evolution. scientists or ordinary, they tried to cover their ignorance of reality by defining and explaining many words incorrectly and vaguely and claim they had the best explanations.

For example, Evolutionists had no definitive definition of species, that is why when they claim that new species had evolved, they could never check correctly if that living organism is really a new species or no. But Evolution discusses about the origin of species.

Evolutionists love to deny the Evolution is an origin theory, but Evolution is an origin of species theory.

Evolutionists had surely distorted the definition and explanations of intelligence and its variants. That is why they had invented 71 definitions of intelligence: all useless, since those definitions could never answer this very simple question: is biological cell intelligently designed or not? Even though I use the variant word like smart or controlled, they could never answer the question:

is biological cell smartly designed or not?

is biological cell controlled or not?

The stupidity from them is so enormous.

Interesting that you have spent more time outlining your dislike of the theory of evolution than you have explaining your personal views. Your understanding of it is erroneous and artificially divisive, but at least you gave it some time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What’s your starting point in the evolutionary process?
This debate is about God and Science so you would need to know about God, yes? Intelligence vs non intelligence as far as Creation.
Can science predict the future? Should be able to seen as the claim is to be able to look back millions and millions of years ago and determine what happened from then till now.

The thread is about the false claim that atheist claim science disproves God. That isn't true. Atheist or theist, there is no claim that science says anything about God or claims that it can show He exists or doesn't.

All that can be said is there is no objective evidence to indicate that the natural world has anyone guiding it or that it was the result of supernatural creation. As a Christian, I can accept that, but it seems to cause you a great deal of distress.

 

[gnostic]

I think of a friend's almost 20 years younger smart sister. She was a very good student.
Since she was past her middle 20's she did not expect to get pregnant. She liked having sex.
She got pregnant from a low IQ guy and her son is 'slow' almost as bad as his father.

I have two cousins both top graduates who married high IQ persons.
Both had 4 children and all 8 children are very smart like the parents.

A smart co-worker told me her half-brother was low IQ.
She told me retardation is hereditary.

All we have to do is look up into the heavens and see intelligence in design.
Intelligence shows a mind, a mind shows a person, and a person shows personality.
God's personality reflected in love and wisdom besides His power.

Fascinating as your stories are, but intelligence play no role in theory of Evolution, because there are more to life than humans.

Sure there are chances that a child may inherit some of the traits of father or mother, but that’s not the theory of Evolution is focusing on. Evolution is about population, not individuals of immediate family (father, mother and child, or siblings).

Evolution is about changes that affect a whole population or large portion of a population, and how these little changes add up to larger changes when comparing the earlier ancestors to the most recent descendants.

For instance, go outside of human evolution. The last ice age resulted in divergence of the brown bears that still in more temperate regions, and those brown bears that in regions covered by ice sheets, with no summers for thousands of generations. Those bears that lived in glacial regions have to adapt to such climate, that are more suited for icy climate all year around for generations. Hence no hibernation in winters. Slowly, incrementally, changes occurred with each generations until the brown bears evolved into the polar bears.

These changes didn’t occur suddenly or overnight.

Glacial period can last last for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, with no thawing of the ice sheets.

It is not just the color of hair or fur turning white, their claws have better traction on ice, thicker hair that are better resistant to wind and Water (polar bears spend a lot of time in sea water, swimming from floating ice to ice to reach their natural preys, eg seals, sea lions), have more body fat than brown bears which also provide better insulation from the cold, and their paws are longer which are better suited for swimming, etc.

The divergence between brown bears and polar bears occurred sometimes around 150,000 years ago. The dna allowed that the polar bears are more closely related to brown bears, so they are considered sister species.

A child being dumber or smarter than the parents, played no roles in evolution, and it isn’t the changes Evolution referring to.

Strength, size and intelligence are not the traits of evolution, because there are lot of weak animals that exist with stronger animals.

Many of the large and powerful dinosaurs became extinct, but much smaller dinosaurs, the birds, began to flourish and diversify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does anything get built without someone building it? We copy our Creator, even you give praise to God without knowing it.

The universe was not "built". The Earth was not "built" the Sun was not "built". You are using a terribly flawed argument that relies largely on equivocation fallacies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thread is about the false claim that atheist claim science disproves God. That isn't true. Atheist or theist, there is no claim that science says anything about God or claims that it can show He exists or doesn't.

All that can be said is there is no objective evidence to indicate that the natural world has anyone guiding it or that it was the result of supernatural creation. As a Christian, I can accept that, but it seems to cause you a great deal of distress.

The problem is that some people. I could name at least two in this thread. Take it personally when their personal version of God is refuted. Yet they can see how the God of a Flat Earther is easily refuted. If they can't have their fetch and carry version of God that made the Earth and everything else the way they want him to have done, I have always thought that people trying to tell their God how he made the Earth is incredibly arrogant by the way, then they think that person "refuted God". Or at least tried to.

The fact that the OP and others are apes, no matter how much they want to deny it, does not mean that God was refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What’s your starting point in the evolutionary process?
This debate is about God and Science so you would need to know about God, yes? Intelligence vs non intelligence as far as Creation.
Can science predict the future? Should be able to seen as the claim is to be able to look back millions and millions of years ago and determine what happened from then till now.

The starting point is after the first life appeared. Why do you think that matters?

And yes, to a limited degree science can predict the future. Do you remember the eclipse that went all the way across the Lower 48? Its path, the width of its path, the timing, we all known and predicted more than a year ahead of time.

Can we predict all future events? No. Not even close.

But this is how your beliefs have been refuted. Creationists that understand science know that if they make a testable model that it will be tested by scientists and almost certainly shown to be terribly wrong. That means when it comes to their creation beliefs they are not scientists. They are cowards. The number one thing that a scientist does is to take his idea and find a way to test it. Then he publishes his findings and his evidence that support it and welcomes the rest of the world to test it and show it to be false. One has to have some guts to be an actual scientist. Any coward that has a degree can become a creationist and they will probably get a job at some bogus creationist site. The good news is that there are very very few people that are willing to put all of that work into an advanced degree and then live a lie.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is that some people. I could name at least two in this thread. Take it personally when their personal version of God is refuted. Yet they can see how the God of a Flat Earther is easily refuted. If they can't have their fetch and carry version of God that made the Earth and everything else the way they want him to have done, I have always thought that people trying to tell their God how he made the Earth is incredibly arrogant by the way, then they think that person "refuted God". Or at least tried to.

The fact that the OP and others are apes, no matter how much they want to deny it, does not mean that God was refuted.

I am often curious and ponder whether some people are just desperate for attention and relevance they think they deserve but don't get in this world. I don't know. I do know that no one has falsified the theory of evolution no matter how many eggs they shot through Kleenex.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

FYI, by using Evolution since Evo is the reigning theory, we have 71 invented definitions of intelligence, probably, by using Evolution as basis. If you choose five or ten invented definitions of intelligence, and use them to answer this simple question: is biological cell intelligently designed or not, those ten could never answer that simple, single problem.

The new <id> is the only one who could answer that correctly, scientifically and logically.

Now, if I am wrong in my claim for this, I will delete all my videos, my science e-books, and my claim...

The theory of evolution is a theory about evolution and not a definition of intelligence. Defining intelligence and the study of it are different subjects. Conflating them and making your wild claims does nothing.

I have seen nothing scientific or logical in your belief system. Good grief, you use math that declares that we can have probabilities in excess of 1. That makes absolutely no sense and something I would never expect to come from someone trained and active in science.

I don't expect you will ever stop. If a lack of evidence and reason can't stop you, why would I expect anyone to do something here that would bring you back down to Earth.

You have a radical belief system. You don't have science. I have not seen anything that would encourage anyone to consider you an expert or an authority in science. Some test you aced 40 years ago is great, but it is not credentials of any relevance.

 

[ElishaElijah]

As a Christian, I can accept that, but it seems to cause you a great deal of distress.

If you are a Christian then your objective evidence is that God gave you the Holy Spirit who is our guarantee of eternal life. That’s John 3 and Ephesians 1. That’s just day 1

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you are a Christian then your objective evidence is that God gave you the Holy Spirit who is our guarantee of eternal life. If you don’t have that then you aren’t a Christian. That’s John 3 and Ephesians 1. That’s just day 1

It is not objective evidence. How can my subjective experience be objective? You don't understand the difference do you.

Fortunately for me, you are not God and unable to determine or declare who is and who is not Christian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you are a Christian then your objective evidence is that God gave you the Holy Spirit who is our guarantee of eternal life. If you don’t have that then you aren’t a Christian. That’s John 3 and Ephesians 1. That’s just day 1

I don't know that you are a Christian. All I know is that you say you are. Personally, that is good enough for me. I am not and cannot know what is truly in the heart of another man. I don't even pretend I can know that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Fortunately for me, you are not God and unable to determine or declare who is and who is not Christian.

We can because God says in Scripture who is or who isn’t, how else will we be able to discern the spirits or false prophets?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Fortunately for me, you are not God and unable to determine or declare who is and who is not Christian.

I don't know that you are a Christian. All I know is that you say you are. Personally, that is good enough for me. I am not and cannot know what is truly in the heart of another man. I don't even pretend I can know that.

Well said, Dan.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It is not objective evidence. How can my subjective experience be objective? You don't understand the difference do you.

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.
Either you received the Holy Spirit or you didn’t, this is not a belief I have, God gave me His Spirit and I was born again and changed.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.
Some people believe they are Christians because they go to Church meetings or follow rules or born in a Christian home but haven’t received the Holy Spirit and believe they are Christian.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well said, Dan.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, that’s how we can know what’s in the heart of a person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We can because God says in Scripture who is or who isn’t, how else will we be able to discern the spirits or false prophets?

I don't have any reason to believe that you can. You seem to be claiming God's abilities for your own from what I am seeing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, that’s how we can know what’s in the heart of a person.

Lots of people have talked sugar and turns out had hearts of coal. Good luck with that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.
Either you received the Holy Spirit or you didn’t, this is not a belief I have, God gave me His Spirit and I was born again and changed.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.
Some people believe they are Christians because they go to Church meetings or follow rules or born in a Christian home but haven’t received the Holy Spirit and believe they are Christian.

Any experience I have or you have is subjective. I have to take your word for it or view your fruits. I'm having some doubts about how fruitilicious you are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself.
Either you received the Holy Spirit or you didn’t, this is not a belief I have, God gave me His Spirit and I was born again and changed.

SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it.
Some people believe they are Christians because they go to Church meetings or follow rules or born in a Christian home but haven’t received the Holy Spirit and believe they are Christian.

Did you do a quick Google search?

Objective evidence is evidence that anyone can examine. Subjective evidence is unique to the individual and not freely available for others to examine, test or draw conclusions on.

How on earth can I know if a person is filled with the Spirit of the Lord or just saying so and pretending? I can't. You can't. That is the bottom line. Deal with it.