God is disproven by science? Really?

[Subduction Zone]

Science answers scientific questions and not all questions of life.

Correct.

By the way, the title of this thread is misleading. The only person that thinks that scientists claim to refute God using science is the OP. Scientists do not generally make that sort of claim about God. The OP has his panties in a knot because his personal version of god is shown to be wrong by science. The fact that life appears to have arisen naturally and the dead certainty that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not even refute the Christian God. It only refutes the god of literalists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I am not religious at all. Probably I should say Creator. So my beliefs are based on something different

Are you sure? It does not seem that way. At any rate getting back to the OP. He wants to debate against evolution, but did so using a false premise. Since you came to the thread rather late you would have seen that no one accepts his false premise. Well maybe one staunch believer that cannot understand that refuting the Adam and Eve myth is not refuting God.

 

[F1fan]

And so narrow minded as to believe science can answer anything

False. Science can't decide if Coke is better than Pepsi. And religions can't answer: is there a God?

 

[millerdog]

False. Science can't decide if Coke is better than Pepsi. And religions can't answer: is there a God?

What makes you the expert? Stick to what YOU know and we will all be better off

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. Science can't decide if Coke is better than Pepsi. And religions can't answer: is there a God?

Coke. And if you can get a Mexican Coke it wins hands down!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you the expert? Stick to what YOU know and we will all be better off

What was wrong with his answer.

Oh I see, You are a Royal Crown or RC Cola fan.

 

[F1fan]

Coke. And if you can get a Mexican Coke it wins hands down!

A can is smuggled in with every illegal swimming the Rio. You need connections. Republicans have no idea what is really going on. And they're stuck with American Coke.

 

[millerdog]

What was wrong with his answer.

Oh I see, You are a Royal Crown or RC Cola fan.

Religion can't answer if there is a God? Who cares. Does that mean there isn't one? Haha.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Correct.

By the way, the title of this thread is misleading. The only person that thinks that scientists claim to refute God using science is the OP. Scientists do not generally make that sort of claim about God. The OP has his panties in a knot because his personal version of god is shown to be wrong by science. The fact that life appears to have arisen naturally and the dead certainty that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not even refute the Christian God. It only refutes the god of literalists.

Oh my goodness... a religious freak who is using science??

Moronic Claim 1: god is shown to be wrong by science.
How come? What is God to science? If God is an Intelligent Designer (IDer), how come science could disprove that or shown that this IDer does not exist?

Moronic Claim 2: The fact that life appears to have arisen naturally
WHAT?? How can you falsify that? Oh my...

Moronic Claim 3: that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not even refute the Christian God
What?? Evolution has nothing to do with reality in Biology! Oh my goodness..

Evolution is change of frequency alleles, is the change intentional or not? Evolution cannot answer that! Oh my...

And then, does not refute God? Evolution and its believers assumed that there is no intelligence, therefore, there is no Intelligent Agent too, which means the creator of universe and life is not God, but dirt... Oh my...

STOP SPREADING religion in a science discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Religion can't answer if there is a God? Who cares. Does that mean there isn't one? Haha.

No. But it does not mean that there is one either.

 

[millerdog]

No. But it does not mean that there is one either.

doesn't matter to me

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my goodness... a religious freak who is using science??

Moronic Claim 1: god is shown to be wrong by science.
How come? What is God to science? If God is an Intelligent Designer (IDer), how come science could disprove that or shown that this IDer does not exist?

I see that you are terribly confused as usual. No one said that God is shown to be wrong by science. A man written book of myths is shown to be wrong by science.

Moronic Claim 2: The fact that life appears to have arisen naturally
WHAT?? How can you falsify that? Oh my...

By various means. But you don't get to discuss abiogenesis with just a 5th grade level of scientific literacy.

Moronic Claim 3: that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not even refute the Christian God
What?? Evolution has nothing to do with reality in Biology! Oh my goodness..

Of course it does. It is the only explanation supported by evidence. Once again, your lack of education is showing.

Evolution is change of frequency alleles, is the change intentional or not? Evolution cannot answer that! Oh my...

And then, does not refute God? Evolution and its believers assumed that there is no intelligence, therefore, there is no Intelligent Agent too, which means the creator of universe and life is not God, but dirt... Oh my...

STOP SPREADING religion in a science discussion.

LOL!!! Oh my that has to be the finniest thing today. I am not spreading religion. You are. I see that you can parrot scholars. I doubt if you know what that means. And we are dealing with science here. There is no evidence for an intelligence. In the sciences one does not believe in something unless it is very well supported by evidence.

Once again, let's work on your scientific illiteracy a bit. What would you like to discuss first? The scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

doesn't matter to me

Then why do you get so irate here? I do not even know what your version of god is. No one has tried to refute it. If you don't explain your beliefs no one will try to refute it.

 

[millerdog]

Then why do you get so irate here? I do not even know what your version of god is. No one has tried to refute it. If you don't explain your beliefs no one will try to refute it.

well it is a forum. but irate? nice try. beliefs are just that: beliefs. and there are different ways to look at things. that's all

 

[Subduction Zone]

well it is a forum. but irate? nice try. beliefs are just that: beliefs. and there are different ways to look at things. that's all

Some beliefs are rational and some are not. Some can be shown to be correct and some seem to be some sort of insane dream.

EDIT: And yes, you have been very irate. And breaking some of the rule rather severely. Why get so mad?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is this your “best guess”?
What Is the Big Bang Theory?
You all are in some thick soup.

Try reading beyond the headline. Just for starters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know anything about biochemistry?

A little. Are you going to answer the questions now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try reading beyond the headline. Just for starters.

No!! Don't tell them to do that! You are taking away one of my favorite weapons in debate. I know that most creationists do not bother with reading the links that are provided for them. But I do tend to read the articles that they provide, especially if they are from a valid soruce. You would be amazed, or maybe not you probably have read enough creationist posts, to see how many times that I can refute them by quoting in context from their own sources.

It makes my job soooo much easier, and soooo much more rewarding when that happens.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I haven’t seen a reasonable answer from any of you on here all you say is you know so much and have facts but don’t see any facts that support the fantasy of abiogenesis. Any experiment you try only supports intelligent design as soon as the human being (scientist) is introduced into the equation of any experiment.

You've been given very good and reasonable answers on the subject of abiogenesis from very informed people. I myself provided you with some evidence that is used to demonstrate Big Bang. Remember? Cosmic microwave background radiation and the Doppler red shift.

The existence of the scientists doesn't show at all that abiogenesis requires an intelligent designer. That's a tired old creationist canard. What the scientists in the experiment actually did was to simulate early earth conditions and then applied electrical sparks to the mixture. You know that electricity is a natural phenomenon, right? And that lightning strikes occur naturally all the time? Yes?

When it comes to artificial selection where humans breed dogs, for instance, the humans are acting as the "environment" (natural selection) when selecting for desired traits in dog breeds. But the whole thing wouldn't work at all if in fact evolution is bogus and natural selection doesn't actually exist as a mechanism. Humans wouldn't be able to select for any traits at all, if evolution wasn't a real phenomenon.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No!! Don't tell them to do that! You are taking away one of my favorite weapons in debate. I know that most creationists do not bother with reading the links that are provided for them. But I do tend to read the articles that they provide, especially if they are from a valid soruce. You would be amazed, or maybe not you probably have read enough creationist posts, to see how many times that I can refute them by quoting in context from their own sources.

It makes my job soooo much easier, and soooo much more rewarding when that happens.

That's actually one of my favorite things.