God is disproven by science? Really?

[Audie]

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?

See how your line of inquiry hanged?
Are sure it was ever an honest question ?

 

[Dimi95]

See how your line of inquiry hanged?
Are sure it was ever an honest question ?

I will take the critic that i don't know enough , but it has zero impact on the final answer.
What i know i have asked , if something was taken as offensive , i apologize.

 

[Audie]

I will take the critic that i don't know enough , but it has zero impact on the final answer.
What i know i have asked , if something was taken as offensive , i apologize.

No call for apology. But the thought is appreciated.

I asked because you were all over the place with
what feel like rhetorical questions, too many to
possibly address.

Ftm, the. " zero effect in final answer" suggests to me
that you "know" the answers and it's pointless to respond
with contrary thoughts.

Yes, no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I did not try to prove anything. Science does not disprove God. Creationists make the error of thinking that because we can demonstrate that they are wrong that we are trying to "disprove God". That has nothing to do with why we show that their claims are wrong.

As to people seeing things while unconscious that appears to be just the brain misfiring. We have ample evidence that thought is just chemical in nature.

Instead of bringing up nothing burger claims you should take a while to learn the scientific method. It is not that hard to understand. From there you can go on to scientific evidence. The sciences are very well respected because they work. Religion does not appear to work. It only comforts people against reality at times.

There may be a God. But I doubt if you will ever be able to prove that there is one. I do not try to prove that there is not one. I will only try to refute evil versions of God that clearly do not exist.

 

[Dimi95]

No call for apology. But the thought is appreciated.

I asked because you were all over the place with
what feel like rhetorical questions, too many to
possibly address.

Ftm, the. " zero effect in final answer" suggests to me
that you "know" the answers and it's pointless to respond
with contrary thoughts.

Yes, no?

Yes , untill oposite is proven.You can take that as reverse also.
Because we take possibilities.
My personal opinion is that Creation has a better stand aggainst Evolution.With what i have seen..
I also wanted to see argument of the oposite side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Please stop that. What do you mean by "the unknown". And you do not even know what a hypothesis is so you should not use that term. This is why you should learn the basics of science. If follow the basics you will be on your way to understanding more of it. Right now you have no understanding of the sciences at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes , untill oposite is proven.You can take that as reverse also.
Because we take possibilities.
My personal opinion is that Creation has a better stand aggainst Evolution.With what i have seen..
I also wanted to see argument of the oposite side.

If that is your opinion you have a lot to learn. Magic never tops reason.

 

[Dimi95]

Please stop that. What do you mean by "the unknown". And you do not even know what a hypothesis is so you should not use that term. This is why you should learn the basics of science. If follow the basics you will be on your way to understanding more of it. Right now you have no understanding of the sciences at all.

Acknowledged , i said that is on my list , maybe i will come back with different approach so we can discuss it like it should.
Untill then , peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Acknowledged , i said that is on my list , maybe i will come back with different approach so we can discuss it like it should.
Untill then , peace.

It may take you a while to learn. And you may not believe this, but creationist sites all are very dishonest. For sites like ICR or AiG, and in fast most of them, people have to swear to not use the scientific method to even work there.

 

[Audie]

Yes , untill oposite is proven.You can take that as reverse also.
Because we take possibilities.
My personal opinion is that Creation has a better stand aggainst Evolution.With what i have seen..
I also wanted to see argument of the oposite side.

OK so nothing about why life on earth , about
scientidts who are Christians etc.
Just evolution.

Just ToE. So what about ToE do you
wish to inquire about?

What alternative do you choose ?
Like Yec, oec, progressive etc..and why?

Oh, and if your ideas cannot be modified
no matter what, plz say so now.

 

[Audie]

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

That's demonstrably untrue of course.

You may be thinking of religious beliefs
but got that wrong too, as religion doesn't even
have any hypotheses still less data to base one on.

 

[gnostic]

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

Evolution isn’t about creating anything, let alone cell structures, silly cowboy.

you are apparent confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis.

Are all creationists so stubbornly ignorant that they can’t distinguish Evolution from Abiogenesis?

And cell structures are not some magical entities. It is based on studies of molecular biology and cell biology and the facts that many of the components of cells are made of biological macromolecules, and they are all natural and fundamental biochemical matters:

1. proteins (tissues, enzymes, etc)
2. nucleic acids (DNA & RNA)
3. carbohydrates
4. lipids

And each of these macromolecules are made of other biological molecules, eg:

protein:​

• polymer chain of amino acids

nucleic acids:​

• 5 nucleobase (nitrogenous base) molecules
  • adenine,
  • cytosine,
  • guanine,
  • thymine (for DNA),
  • uracil (for RNA),
• phosphate group:
  • AMP,
  • ADP,
  • ATP
• pentose (5-carbon) sugar:
  • ribose (single helix)
  • deooxyribose (double helices)

carbohydrates:​

• there are many types of sugar, just as there are many function, depending on the cell types.

​

The points that tissues are made of cells are organic matters filled with organic molecules, and fundamentally they are all chemistry, with much of molecules are carbon-based.

And the points require understanding of chemistry - inorganic and organic - their relationship to each other. And that’s what are required to research Abiogenesis.

As Abiogenesis is basically chemistry, there are nothing mystical, magical or supernatural about understanding Abiogenesis. The same cannot be said about your religious belief in Creation or in Intelligent Design.

the belief in miracles and divine powers, actually defied natural reality, meaning magic and supernatural, which are natural.

 

[gnostic]

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?

The sciences that qualified and experienced Christians come from researches and hard works, through observations of evidence. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, etc, are all Christians, and geniuses, but their sciences come through their works, not from their beliefs in their bible or their church.

Creationists, on the other hand, are not doing sciences, they are not doing the works. And they are still using superstitions, eg the “God did it”.

The “God did it” isnt explanation as to what is natural phenomena and how such phenomena work (meaning the natural processes or the mechanisms).

I am afraid it is you, Apostle95, who don’t understand science, not @Subduction Zone .

 

[Audie]

Evolution isn’t about creating anything, let alone cell structures, silly cowboy.

you are apparent confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis.

Are all creationists so stubbornly ignorant that they can’t distinguish Evolution from Abiogenesis?

And cell structures are not some magical entities. It is based on studies of molecular biology and cell biology and the facts that many of the components of cells are made of biological macromolecules, and they are all natural and fundamental biochemical matters:

1. proteins (tissues, enzymes, etc)
2. nucleic acids (DNA & RNA)
3. carbohydrates
4. lipids

And each of these macromolecules are made of other biological molecules, eg:

protein:​

• polymer chain of amino acids

nucleic acids:​

• 5 nucleobase (nitrogenous base) molecules
  • adenine,
  • cytosine,
  • guanine,
  • thymine (for DNA),
  • uracil (for RNA),
• phosphate group:
  • AMP,
  • ADP,
  • ATP
• pentose (5-carbon) sugar:
  • ribose (single helix)
  • deooxyribose (double helices)

carbohydrates:​

• there are many types of sugar, just as there are many function, depending on the cell types.

​

The points that tissues are made of cells are organic matters filled with organic molecules, and fundamentally they are all chemistry, with much of molecules are carbon-based.

And the points require understanding of chemistry - inorganic and organic - their relationship to each other. And that’s what are required to research Abiogenesis.

As Abiogenesis is basically chemistry, there are nothing mystical, magical or supernatural about understanding Abiogenesis. The same cannot be said about your religious belief in Creation or in Intelligent Design.

the belief in miracles and divine powers, actually defied natural reality, meaning magic and supernatural, which are natural.

Perhaps not all are so dedicated to
that particular stupidity.

But I doubt it. Possible reasons include
any or all of the following.

-intellectual capacity to understand the
distinction
- belief that "god" could create only
the way they say
- a need to have an eze- peeze way to
disprove ToE. For that " yeah but
life only comes from life: a scientific law of nature",
or some version of kalams cosmetic will serve.

- Incapacity to ever admit to any error/ no
concept of intellectual honesty


No doubt there's more

 

[gnostic]

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?

What I have highlighted in your post, i am assuming you means, how life “started” on Earth in the first place.

That’s origin of life question, hence your question should be directed towards Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

like every single creationists I know here, you are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.

Evolution is a scientific theory that explain genetic variations in populations over time, that would include speciations. Evolution is all about the biod of organisms over time.

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis regarding to origin of life. But it is more than that. It is also about the origins of cells, and the origins of biological macromolecules, which are essential to life. These large biological molecules are:

• proteins (eg tissues, enzymes, etc); proteins are made from amino acids;
• nucleic acids are the genetic coding (or genetic information) that govern inheritable physical traits (proteins) from generation to generation; you would know these nucleic acids as:
  • RNA (ribonucleic acids)
  • DNA (deoxyribonucleic acids);
• carbohydrates, of which there are many types of sugar that have many types of functions;
• lipids, of which there are many types and functions, and among one of that function is they make up the cell membrane, which protect the interior of the cells.

A number of Abiogenesis experiments, including the Miller-Urey experiment (1952) that show amino acids can be chemically produced from inorganic chemicals or in compounds (methane, water, ammonia & hydrogen plus electric sparks to simulate lightning, to start che reaction). Other experiments used other inorganic compounds to produce amino acids. In 1961, Joan Oró used a few inorganic chemicals to produce adenine, one of the 5 nucleobase molecules for nucleoside of nucleic acids.

Amino acids are important organic compounds, because that’s what proteins are made of. Just as proteins are building blocks of tissues for multicellular organisms, amino acids are the building blocks to different types of proteins.

That experiments have been successful, demonstrating that Abiogenesis is a working falsifiable hypothesis, which means the hypothesis is heading in the right direction.

Abiogenesis may still be hypothesis, however it have far more potential of being science than either Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Both Creationism and Intelligent Design are pseudoscience concepts, because they still relied on beliefs of superstitions, eg “God did it” or “Designer did it”. Superstitions are not explanations of any mechanisms to living organisms.

They are pseudoscience because you cannot observe & test God or the Designer, which respectively make Creationism and Intelligent Design unfalsifiable & untestable.

 

[Eli G]

...

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF FIRST LIFE.

...

What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?
If the first life that arose did not evolve from any other life, then the whole story is false.

It's like in mathematics: you check that a law is true if you can apply it to number 1 and number 2, because then you can understand that it also applies to all numbers consecutively. But if it doesn't apply to 1+1, you can never apply it to all numbers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?
If the first life that arose did not evolve from any other life, then the whole story is false.

It's like in mathematics: you check that a law is true if you can apply it to number 1 and number 2, because then you can understand that it also applies to all numbers consecutively. But if it doesn't apply to 1+1, you can never apply it to all numbers.

Evolutionism? Do you mean science? And no. Evolution works even if a God magically poofs the first life into existence. I am sure that this has been explained to you before. The ultimate source of first life does not refute evolution. It works no matter where life came from.

 

[John53]

What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?
If the first life that arose did not evolve from any other life, then the whole story is false.

How so? Evolution needs life it doesn't matter how life 1st started.

 

[metis]

What a big disappointment for evolutionism, isn't it?

In science we don't assume, plus there no such thing as "evolutionism".

 

[Eli G]

In science we don't assume, plus there no such thing as "evolutionism".

Hehehe ... Statistics are pure assumptions.
You don't sound like a scientist. Are you?