God is disproven by science? Really?

[metis]

(Complex cellular structures, evolving even through graded steps, is simply assumed.)

No, it's not as sometimes it's been observed, such as with the experiments I mentioned previously that's been taking place at my old graduate alma mater.

Evolution is simply not even remotely antithetical to Christianity as the majority of Christian theologians agree.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, it's not as sometimes it's been observed, such as with the experiments I mentioned previously

(Hey metis , hope you and yours are well.)

Post them, please.

And keep in mind, we need to observe natural processes creating the pathways toward building cellular structures, not the scientists creating those steps.. (They represent intelligence, not unthinking mechanisms.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How can we prove there's any god at all?

(It’s me again.)

By the inability of evolution to create those cellular structures about which I just posted!

It’s inference based on assumption!
Since there’s no scientific testing which can verify a Creator, the assumption is He doesn’t exist.

That’s why we have all of these “explanations” through natural processes which are supported by very little evidence, such as Earth’s origin & abiogenesis.

There’s design screaming at us, everywhere we look.


Have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Hey metis , hope you and yours are well.)

Post them, please.

And keep in mind, we need to observe natural processes creating the pathways toward building cellular structures, not the scientists creating those steps.. (They represent intelligence, not unthinking mechanisms.)

Oh my, it looks as if you are trying to weasel out of the argument ahead of time. We may go back to the basics of scientific evidence. A concept that you probably still do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(It’s me again.)

By the inability of evolution to create those cellular structures about which I just posted!

How would you prove that?

It’s inference based on assumption!
Since there’s no scientific testing which can verify a Creator, the assumption is He doesn’t exist.

No, no one assumes that a creator does not exist. That is a falsehood that creationists claim.

That’s why we have all of these “explanations” through natural processes which are supported by very little evidence, such as Earth’s origin & abiogenesis.

No, that is where the scientific evidence leads to. Now you have confirmed once again that you do not understand the scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence. And what makes you think that there is little evidence for abiogenesis?

There’s design screaming at us, everywhere we look.

Then why can't any creationists ever find any scientific evidence for it?

Have a good night.

You too. Think about that. If you think that you have scientific evidence I would be willing to bet that that claim can easily be shown to be wrong.

 

[metis]

Post them, please.

I can't since I know these experiments were done in the 50's through the 70's at least, thus I cannot access them.

And keep in mind, we need to observe natural processes creating the pathways toward building cellular structures, not the scientists creating those steps.. (They represent intelligence, not unthinking mechanisms.)

They are a logical byproduct of mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection. This is of no mystery since each one has repeated been observed and tested.

OK, let me play this game back at ya: Prove that Jesus resurrected, but quoting scripture is not proof since it's a subjective source.

There vastly more evidence for the former than the latter, so why is it that you reject the former but not the latter?

 

[metis]

By the inability of evolution to create those cellular structures about which I just posted!

We don't know how or exactly when the first cells originated as we weren't around over 3 billion years ago.

Since there’s no scientific testing which can verify a Creator, the assumption is He doesn’t exist.

But then it's also an assumption that He does exist.

BTW, you hopefully should remember that I am a theist, right?

There’s design screaming at us, everywhere we look.

Then why do we get sick and then die? faulty design?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hello, metis.
I’ll try to reply to your other posts as I get the time.
But to briefly answer this one….

Then why do we get sick and then die? faulty design?

The quick answer is found at Romans 5:12.

More on this, later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello, metis.
I’ll try to reply to your other posts as I get the time.
But to briefly answer this one….

The quick answer is found at Romans 5:12.

More on this, later.

How can a refuted myth explain anything? And remember, an ad hoc explanation has no value. You need a testable model at the very least to claim to have a rational explanation.

 

[Dimi95]

I have basic questions..

How the planet Earth stands in this position where it is,with that particular distance from the sun , which brings conditions for life , and exactly that planet is filled with so much life in it?

How does Evolution and Science explain this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a basic question..

How the planet Earth stands in this position where it is,with that particular distance from the sun , which brings conditions for life , and exactly that planet is filled with so much life in it.

How does Evolution and Science explain this?

You are using a false premise. There is no such precise distance. The Goldilocks Zone is bigger than you seem to realize.

 

[Dimi95]

You are using a false premise. There is no such precise distance. The Goldilocks Zone is bigger than you seem to realize.

I take that back because i didn't know it honestly , but that does not answer the meaning of the question, don't you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take back that because i didn't know it honestly , but that does not answer the meaning of the question, don't you think?

No, not really. Across the universe there are countless possible planets where life could arise. We are only going to find life on planets that are in such zones. It is just a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Dimi95]

No, not really. Across the universe there are countless possible planets where life could arise. We are only going to find life on planets that are in such zones. It is just a self fulfilling prophecy.

But why did life appeared on this planet , how did we became life?
How do we know what is life?
From where?
Creation knows very little of what is unknown , but Evolution and Science knows nothing about what is unknown.
Use that testable model that you mentioned..

 

[Subduction Zone]

But why did life appeared on this planet , how did we became life?
How do we know what is life?
From where?
Creation knows very little of what is unknown , but Evolution and Science knows nothing about what is unknown.
Use that testable model that you mentioned..

You have that backwards.

We know quite a bit about the "unknown". There is not even any scientific evidence for a " creation". Abiogenesis is getting closer and closer to an explanation of how life arose. Creationists have no explanations.

 

[Dimi95]

You have that backwards.

We know quite a bit about the "unknown". There is not even any scientific evidence for a " creation". Abiogenesis is getting closer and closer to an explanation of how life arose. Creationists have no explanations.

That's where you fall.. in my opinion
You seek only scientificly approved evidence , one perspective and it limits you even if you think that gives you advantage.
Don't get me wrong , i support Science , look where it lead us as civilization , but Science does not have the crucial answers for life.It comes to point Zero where rational explenation is given , but does not go further.. To the orign.

Let me give you one fact so you can look at it:
"Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences.It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, uni and hospitals,and many Christian clergy have been active in the sciences, and have made significant contributions to the development of science."

Why is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's where you fall.. in my opinion
You seek only scientificly approved evidence , one perspective and it limits you even if you think that gives you advantage.
Don't get me wrong , i support Science , look where it lead us as civilization , but Science does not have the crucial answers for life.It comes to point Zero where rational explenation is given , but does not go further.. To the orign.

Let me give you one fact so you can look at it:
"Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences.It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, uni and hospitals,and many Christian clergy have been active in the sciences, and have made significant contributions to the development of science."

No, I seek reliable evidence. There is none for the myths of the Bible. Since you appear to be scientifically illiterate you probably do not understand that when a person demands that the myths of Genesis are true that one is also claiming that God is a liar.

 

[Dimi95]

No, I seek reliable evidence. There is none for the myths of the Bible. Since you appear to be scientifically illiterate you probably do not understand that when a person demands that the myths of Genesis are true that one is also claiming that God is a liar.

After i finish what i study at the moment, Science and Evolution are next on my list.

I acknowledge what you said , but still it does not prove or disaprove anything.

For example , a kid who wakes up from koma in the hospital tells that he saw a man who's eyes were the greatest light that he has seen , he tells his mother what he said about her life and that is shocking.
What is happening in our subconscious?
You would say that is not reliable evidence but it does not change the fact that probably he is telling the true.

 

[Astrophile]

I have basic questions..

How the planet Earth stands in this position where it is,with that particular distance from the sun , which brings conditions for life , and exactly that planet is filled with so much life in it?

How does Evolution and Science explain this?

There are eight planets, and at least five dwarf planets, in the solar system, and only one is in the habitable zone. This suggests chance rather than design. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Galaxy, and probably most of them have planets. By pure chance, some of these extrasolar planets must be in their stars' habitable zones; perhaps these planets also have life.

Our Galaxy is only one of about two trillion galaxies in the observable universe. Each of these galaxies contains many billions of stars, making a total of about 10^23 stars. Again, many of these planets must be in their stars' habitable zones, and again some of these planets are likely to have life. The Earth may be only one of billions or even trillions of life-bearing planets.

 

[Dimi95]

There are eight planets, and at least five dwarf planets, in the solar system, and only one is in the habitable zone. This suggests chance rather than design. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Galaxy, and probably most of them have planets. By pure chance, some of these extrasolar planets must be in their stars' habitable zones; perhaps these planets also have life.

Our Galaxy is only one of about two trillion galaxies in the observable universe. Each of these galaxies contains many billions of stars, making a total of about 10^23 stars. Again, many of these planets must be in their stars' habitable zones, and again some of these planets are likely to have life. The Earth may be only one of billions or even trillions of life-bearing planets.

I get your answers , but the best answer is that science knows nothing about what is unknown.No reliable evidence
Hypothesis only..