INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Why not provide them without any money on the table?

I am not digging through boxes in a storage area to refute your misconceptions alone. No rate of return on investment.

In any case, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you studied when and where, each argument stands on its own merits, and yours should be judged independently of any qualifications you possess. For what it's worth, I should not have made that judgment about your academic credentials anyway, and I apologize for overstepping the line.

Well your stock just went up quite a bit and I appreciate the honesty. Let me give you a tip. Most Christian’s automatically think non-Christians are arrogant and offensive. It goes a long way, if you consistently demonstrate the opposite. I will admit that my attitude mirrors whoever I am discussing things with. It shouldn't, I am supposed to take the high road but often just get frustrated and impatient with ineffective arguments (or what appear to be) and sarcasm and do likewise or worse at times.

They weren't produced by intelligence, they were produced by replicating early earth conditions and analyzing the results.

Would that experiment have happened if the scientists didn't apply their intelligence. I get your point, but when initial conditions are determined they are based on assumptions on top of assumptions on top of guesses (intelligence is heavily involved). For example several of these experiments have removed oxygen when they first failed because oxygen breaks everything up. They all fail to produce life. By all means keep doing them but I would prefer only the parameters and results, not what they are spun up to be. Can you agree that the need to produce exciting and meaningful results just about outstrips every other motivation for a theoretical scientist? Saying galaxies should not hold together is boring, saying it is a new type of matter called dark matter (even though not one atom of dark matter has ever been detected) is what is claimed for it's effect and grant money potential. He does not produce useful products he produces ideas and theories. What is most accurate (given the abject failure so far) is also the least beneficial.

Irrelevant. The fact still remains that this demonstrates that the building blocks of life can arise naturally. It may not be much to you, but it is infinitely more evidence than you have every provided to the contrary

I never claimed the contrary. I would have predicted that lower than equilibrium complexity is created by nature constantly. Let me give an example. If you break up a thousand piece puzzle and put it in a bad and shake it up. You will occasionally get a piece or two maybe even 3 or 4 on rare occasions. That is low equilibrium. You will never get a few hundred or the billions needed for life. Why? Because the odds of good things coming apart is far greater than good things getting together. This is a whole level of probability I have not even brought up. Chemical evolution. Your determinism effect would also apply to the puzzle and it would also fail to put the whole thing together or even a significant part.

It's not intellectual dishonesty to follow the evidence where it leads. Early earth conditions being able to produce amino acids, like it or not, is evidence that life can potentially arise naturally in early earth conditions.

No it's proof for what nobody denies nature can and does produce very low level complexity. Why don't you understand that throwing three balls in the air and having them land in a line is one thing, throwing 3.2 billion and that happening is quite another. The first thing does not justify even faith in the other.

It's not dishonest. Name one thing in the entirety of human history which has a demonstrably supernatural cause. I don't see you refuting the point.

It is dishonest. Please note how I use the far more innocuous term dishonest instead of the offensive term lying. This is what you said: Not a single example of anything supernatural ever occurring has ever been observed.
There is no mention of proof in that statement. You cooked that up when I called you on it. You said no one has ever observed a supernatural event. How would you know even if it's true? Claiming to know what you can't possibly know is lying because it is intentional and no mistake, however I will only use dishonest because I am not typing for effect. There are literally billions of claims of experiencing the supernatural. There is an appearance of Mary in Mexico or south America I think, seen by hundreds of thousands. I do not believe in any Mary miracle but I do know enough to not call thousands of people: so stupid they think a lady is running around on a roof when there isn’t one. I myself rule out 98% of them just because I am skeptical but I KNOW they do happen I have experienced the supernatural in unmistakable ways a few times.

Then you have no possible way of knowing either, so making claims about it is pointless.

WRONG again, I have experienced it. I do not need to know anything else.

Can you demonstrate it? Can you demonstrate that the cause of your experience was supernatural? Are there no reasonable alternative explanations?

Nope, why should I? You can believe what you wish, you will anyway, and Nope.

If you can answer these questions with a yes, I have a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

If you can actually make life in a lab like a thousand headlines have claimed they have I will see you on time magazine. Why do you have a Nobel prize?

I'm not calling them liars. I'm calling them wrong. There's a big difference.

I will let this slide even though it is not as easy to separate the terms as you might want to believe. The point is you have no way of knowing either way yet you are making a claim to knowledge which is dishonest whether you can get out of calling them liars or not.

They didn't try to force it. They replicated early earth conditions and observed the results.

I have read two experiments years ago where Oxygen was removed because Oxygen breaks everything apart.

A heaping mound of garbage, totally and completely. Are you honestly going to make the peanut butter jar argument? Seriously?

Nope every one of those 4 or 5 points is a fact. However since you arrogantly think peanut butter which I never mentioned is a terrible argument then why don’t you prove why it is so bad.

Did you completely ignore my refutation? All of these calculations are meaningless and completely baseless. Do I have to repeat myself? I'm not as keen to do it as you are.

Is this your refutation? It is not convenient so no matter how many degrees they have they can't be accurate, but your guys are. I give up there is no fact ever made that can combat cognitive dissonance. I never ever see this level of arrogance, assumptions, sarcasm, and cherry picking from any other issue but atheistic evolution. I have had enough of all four for the time being.

 

[1robin]

Don’t bother.
Pseudoscience is a belief that masquerades as a real science, despite failing to follow the scientific method.
Your arguments are often engulfed in intellectual dishonesty and for that reason …I am out. :run:

Well take a few of the others with you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Boy you guys are frustrating. I said no proof, not no evidence. Which is infinitely more than can be said for much of the science fiction used as an argument against God. They do not even have any potential evidence.
See above. There is more than enough evidence a thousand times over to convince anyone not determined to reject it all.

Two things:

1. I don't know what definition you're using for "faith" but to me it means believing something without evidence.

2. Non-believers don't prove god(s) doesn't exist. That's not how things work. The believer has the burden of proof on the positive assertion they're making. If you disagree with that, then please prove to me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

Then you can tell my why abiogenesis is claimed to have happened by thousands of scientists. There is not a single example of that ever happening under observation, nor macroevolution, nor an eternal universe, nor string theory etc adinfinitum. It's your dang scientific method if you won't obey it at least do not call it non faith based conclusions.

Well, because we know that the universe exists. We know that nature exists. We know that it's possible for the building blocks of life to form from inorganic matter. We find that every time we search for an explanation for something observed in nature, there is a natural explanation behind it (especially the things into which people used to insert a god explanation, like lightning, the sun seemingly rising and setting, germs, etc). We can detect cosmic background radiation. Those are just a few reasons.

Macroevolution has been observed. Evolution is a fact of life.

With the exception of the undetectable dark matter none of these are based on any evidence what so ever.

Yes, they are based on evidence. What are you not understanding about the scientific method?

They claim abiogenesis happened a thousand times a day.

What?? I don't know what this means.

In fact the entire theory of evolution is dependent on that faith based assertion devoid of evidence.

No, it certainly isn't. Evolution is an extremely well supported biological fact. There is absolutely no faith required in accepting the theory of evolution.

This always kills me about people who think the way you do. You guys accept most of what science has to offer (e.g. germ theory or gravitational theory, you use computers, fly around in planes, take antibiotics), but when it comes to the science that doesn't fit into your religious beliefs you have no problem tossing it to the wind and accusing those who accept them of employing faith. When in reality, the same scientific method used to determine the validity of those things is the exact same scientific method used to determine the validity of evolution. It's illogical for you to accept some and not others based on personal preference.

This has certainly been the day for the old tried and true arrogant assertion that Christians are too stupid to recognize how smart secular scientists are when they produce a metric ton of theory based on a gram of evidence.

What? I didn't say you're too stupid to recognize how smart secular scientists are. What I said was you pick and choose science based on your personal preference. As in, "oohh I like this one so I'll accept it, but that other one disagrees with my religious view so I don't like it and won't accept it no matter what evidence is presented to me." It's antithetical to the way we think about everything else.

And again, scientists don't produce a metric ton of theory based on a gram of evidence. You're still not understanding how the scientific method works. When hypothesis are fully supported by a ton of evidence reproduced over and over again, independently verified by different groups of independent scientists, and when multiple lines of evidence across multiple fields of science converge (as in evolution, for example) then they become scientific theories. Scientists don't just form theories on a whim or personal preference and then they're magically accepted by everyone. It takes a lot of study and a lot of evidence to get there.

That is not my conclusion above it is cosmological consensus. This is rarely challenged seriously in professional circles. Of course crackpots have their fantasies but this is current cosmology. The theory was made to be bullet proof on purpose. Is the product of secular scientists of the top tier and nothing KNOWN counters it. Good night nurse.

First of all, it's not a theory, it may be considered a theorem.

Secondly, it's not a proof for god. If it is true that the universe had a finite beginning, it doesn't necessarily follow that "god did it." (Also, even if it has to be a god, there's no reason to believe it must be the Christian god). You don't just get to fill a mystery in with a mystery. It still explains nothing.

Thirdly, I feel like I need to insert Alexander Vilenkin's own words here:
In response to a question posed to him by Victor Stenger:

Stenger: "Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?"

Vilenkin: "No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."
Victor Stenger on William Lane Craig

 

[1robin]

"Contingent" is a very capricious concept.

The bottom of the issue is: how can you know only a conscious being can do this? How is it not a supposition?

This is the determination of information theory. Ask Bill gates or look up some of his quotes. Higher than equilibrium specified complexity has no known source except intelligence. Trees do not make equations, clouds do not produce Morse code, a rock does not type Shakes spear, the moon did not create a city on its surface. The reason is extreme complexity (information being at the top) requires intent. Nature has no will to place A first, B second, C third, but it can at times do it by accident. What it won't do it put 3.2 billion bits of data in the right order when the chances right things fall apart is vastly higher than the chances they stay together.

Yu have seen conscious beings doing things deliberately and these things working well(sometimes) . How does is evidence that all which works well was made deliberately by a conscious being?

I heard a crude but very good way to explain it. I think it was A.E Wilder who I heard it from. He was a brilliant chemist. Things in nature are type in type out systems. Imagine that Chemical evolution is represented by a puzzle with a thousand pieces. Break it up and throw it in a box. Now shake that box up. Occasionally you might get one or two pieces to fit together but you will never get many more at any one time. You might think so but the reason you won't is that the pieces that are together have a vastly higher chance of coming apart than the chances of getting another right one in the right place. Nature can build low complexity things on its own but not 3.2 billion bits of data in the right order. However a mind can put that puzzle together in an hour because with intent we can stop the breaking apart and increase the chance of finding the right piece and putting it where it belongs to be 100% instead of .00000000001%. Also see contingent probabilities. My claims are not based on what I observe though reality does agree. They are based on mathematics, information theory, and physics.

And who determines what works well or not? Because even that is an arbitrary judgment.

Efficiency and optimality are not the issue. My claim is that nature will never build a skyscraper on its own not that it only builds bad ones. It can't make anything that is very complex. Only a mind can.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you have to ask, I am unsure my explanation will help. However nature is governed by thermodynamics. Said to be the most immutable laws in nature by Einstein. It mandates that nature results in low complexity on its own. Less than equilibrium complexity. The only even theoretical exception is to have a very very complex system that can convert energy into complexity. That system depends on information it did not produce. Information is not only complexity it is specified complexity. So before that system information was impossible to produce by nature if it even was after. What made the information to produce the first system that even theoretically could produce brute complexity but not specified complexity. I have a math degree and work with a PhD that is a contributor to information theory. I have just given very basic issue here. For information to be useful it must also have an independent system that is tuned to decode that specific language. It just gets worse and worse. DNA is 3.2 billion bits in the exact order necessary. That is thousands of encyclopedias. What in nature can produce this? Natural law can copy information (even that is nonsense but I will grant it) but natural law has never created anything from nothing much less complexity not to mention specified complexity and it's decoding system. Only a mind can do that. You ever seen a computer code write itself, a letter type itself, a telegram dash and dot its self.

No, no. What I mean is, what are you defining as "information?"

If you want to use the second law of thermodynamics in order to make your argument, you have to ignore the existence of the sun, which I don't think you do.

Your comparison between DNA and encyclopedias, letters, telegrams and codes is bizarre. DNA is not a written language, it's an arrangement of chemical reactions.

Also, are you under the impression that the earth and all it's lifeforms as we know them today always existed in their present form? If you don't, I really don't understand how you come to the above conclusions.

That is a circular fallacy and I am running to short of time to explain it as well.

It's a basic observation.

Go ahead and provide any evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

You do not have much experience in these matters do you. The universe is not only tuned for any life of any kind to even appear once and vanish, it is also fine-tuned to allow that to even have a chance, and not only that but to even have a structure at all. One hairs breath of difference in the expansion rate even at 1 second and no material universe of structures of any kind exists. Where are you getting this crap? I do not have enough time to keep straightening out these inaccuracies I will try and continue tomorrow. There are just too many.

I do indeed have experience in these matters. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The above claim which you made becomes stranger and stranger to me over time. I have no idea how anyone can view our universe and conclude that it's fine-tuned for life when the only life we know of, exists on the planet we live on.

All that crap about "well if this was a quarter inch closer to this" means absolutely nothing and it doesn't further your argument at all, especially in light of the point I just made to you. The point which you ignored, by the way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt, however:
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
christopher hitchens

I miss Hitch.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree. I do believe evolution happens and I believe thermodynamics is nature’s most immutable law. (I also believe they work against each other. However thermodynamics has no Cambrian explosion problems, no abiogenesis problems, no complexity problems, no non observable macro problems, and no it happened 500 million years ago problems.

It doesn't matter if you disagree, things are facts whether you believe in them or not.

Evolution does not have a Cambrian explosion problem, that's a myth perpetuated by young earth creationists.

Evolution does not have an abiogenesis problem, as it doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

Evolution does not have a complexity problem as it posits that life evolved from the simple to the complex over time.

Evolution does not have a macro problem as macroevolution has been observed, it's borne out by genetics, and it is simply microevolution on a larger scale. (There's really no difference between the two.)

And finally, evolution does not have a 500 million years ago problem (whatever that even means).

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
Two things:
1. I don't know what definition you're using for "faith" but to me it means believing something without evidence.

Theological faith is believing a truth without possession of PROOF. There I am sure are people who believe without evidence. I think that is stupid. I am not wasting my life worrying about what some being with no evidence wants. The God I fought against four over 2 dozen years but who wore me out in the end has vastly more evidence than needed to justify even reluctant faith. I was giving you my definition of faith. I am sure there are as many definitions as there are letters in the word.

2. Non-believers don't prove god(s) doesn't exist. That's not how things work. The believer has the burden of proof on the positive assertion they're making. If you disagree with that, then please prove to me that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.

I was not commenting concerning what non believers must do or not. I was saying concepts in science used as arguments against God are completely devoid of evidence yet it is they who complain because we have evidence but not proof. Well they don't even have that. It was the hypocrisy concerning argumentation not what responsibility a non believer has. BTW an atheist does have to prove no God exists or should.

[/font][/color]
Well, because we know that the universe exists. We know that nature exists. We know that it's possible for the building blocks of life to form from inorganic matter. We find that every time we search for an explanation for something observed in nature, there is a natural explanation behind it (especially the things into which people used to insert a god explanation, like lightning, the sun seemingly rising and setting, germs, etc). We can detect cosmic background radiation. Those are just a few reasons.
Macroevolution has been observed. Evolution is a fact of life.

Macroevolution is a fact of your imagination but may be a fact of nature but at present that is NOT KNOWN. It is a faith based guess. One I do not deny but there is far more than nature to reality. There are many studies that show that mind is far more than it's biological parts. The entire universe did not exist at one point and nature was no where to be found. So it could not have created the universe. So everything that has ever existed is evidence for the supernatural as the only choice left. BTW natural law is causally neutral. It never has nor never will create anything. Maybe you sit around hoping that the equation 2 + 2 = will put 4 dollars in your checking account but it won't. Gravity did not create matter. I have about a thousand things to add but I am burned out so I will leave this here. I will say that given only the Bible I would have expected the exact universe we have (which is why scientists are creating science fictional multiverses as fast as they can make draw them with their etch-e-sketches) and nature to be exactly what it is. God at one time sustained nature yet with the fall he left us at it's mercy with only rare exceptions, so you claims about nature are as consistent with the Bible as possible.

Yes, they are based on evidence. What are you not understanding about the scientific method?

Good lord man, The scientific method requires observation or reproducibility in a lab. Have you got a box of Dark matter I can view? However I have no need to know the aspects of a method even scientists won't use much of the time. Why should I be concerned with their method if they arent.

What?? I don't know what this means.

I did word that weird. They constantly claim that a process that has no exception has in fact occurred, and they claim that very very often. What method are they using for that? The old make up whatever gets grant money and is convenient method.

No, it certainly isn't. Evolution is an extremely well supported biological fact. There is absolutely no faith required in accepting the theory of evolution.

How many macroevolutions have you witnessed? Did you see any of the thousands of extremely improbable events that were necessary billions of years ago to even get a universe for anything to evolve in? How many fish have you seen adapt to life on land? How many offspring of any of those dinosaur fossils did you witness mutations in? None, didn't think so. I believe in evolution to (the extent may be different) but it is based on reasoned faith and I am at least honest enough to admit it.

This always kills me about people who think the way you do. You guys accept most of what science has to offer (e.g. germ theory or gravitational theory, you use computers, fly around in planes, take antibiotics), but when it comes to the science that doesn't fit into your religious beliefs you have no problem tossing it to the wind and accusing those who accept them of employing faith. When in reality, the same scientific method used to determine the validity of those things is the exact same scientific method used to determine the validity of evolution. It's illogical for you to accept some and not others based on personal preference.

If it wasn’t for the shoulders of science giants like:
Leonardo da Vinci
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Sir Isaac Newton
Gottfried Leibniz
Antoine Lavoisier
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Nicola Tesla
Max Planck
Guglielmo Marconi
Niels Bohr
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Michael Polanyi
Enrico Fermi
Allan Sandage
etc...adinfinitum
http://brainz.org/50-most-influential-christians-all-time/

Science would still be bleeding people to death for a cold and killing them by the tens of thousands by not knowing enough to wash between surgeries. Both of which the Hebrews knew about 3000 years ago and science still didn’t in the 19th century. Not to mention knowing about the global sea currents, hydrological cycles, and the fact that time, matter and space began to exist. Some of these your guys did not know until the last hundred years or so, yet the Hebrews knew them before the Greek ' "scientists" were producing classics like "everything is composed of water" or that "The body is full of good and bad humors" I have had it with this sarcastic arrogant crap. You and your assumed omniscience are just too much. Why is it always the evolution crowd that does this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is based totally on something you have no way possible of knowing. Try again. I for one have experienced the supernatural more than once. Your calling billions of people liars is getting close to my cut of the discussion point.

Lots and lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Do you believe them?

Lots of people have claimed to have experienced the supernatural. Well good for them. That doesn't count as evidence to anyone but themselves. I'm sorry, but it can't be more than that. Once you and all of these people can provide evidence for the supernatural and provide evidence that when you experienced what you did you weren't under some misapprehension, or that there's no other possible explanation for what happened to you, then maybe we can think about considering your personal experiences as some kind of evidence for the supernatural (you still have a ton of work to do if you want to prove it's the god you believe in on top of that). Until then, we can't just accept them as fact, because then we'd have to agree that ghosts haunt old houses, or that aliens routinely abduct people from the planet earth, or that yeti is roaming around the Himalayas somewhere.

You might want to call up James Randi and tell him you've got evidence of the supernatural - he's willing to give you a million dollars "show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess that si one way to dismiss things you do not like. However that will not get the dozens of very good biologists back their jobs they lost because they left the door open for God.

Like who?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was not commenting concerning what non believers must do or not. I was saying concepts in science used as arguments against God are completely devoid of evidence yet it is they who complain because we have evidence but not proof. Well they don't even have that. It was the hypocrisy concerning argumentation not what responsibility a non believer has. BTW an atheist does have to prove no God exists or should.

What concepts in science are you referring to?

Atheists simply have a lack of a belief in a god. They're not making an assertion. Atheists do not have to prove that god doesn't exist anymore than a random person who doesn't believe in unicorns has to prove that unicorns don't exist. Hence, why I asked you to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Get it?

Macroevolution is a fact of your imagination but may be a fact of nature but at present that is NOT KNOWN.It is a faith based guess

It is a fact of evolution, which is itself a fact. Again, reapeating over and over again that it's not a fact doesn't magically make it so. Macroevolution is demonstrable, as I already explained to you. Do you actually take in any information when you're talking to someone?

It's not a faith based guess. Your god is a faith-based guess. Your attempt to equate science with religion is strange to me.

. One I do not deny but there is far more than nature to reality. There are many studies that show that mind is far more than it's biological parts.

Like what?

The entire universe did not exist at one point and nature was no where to be found. So it could not have created the universe. So everything that has ever existed is evidence for the supernatural as the only choice left.

So you say. Where are your peer-reviewed studies?

BTW natural law is causally neutral. It never has nor never will create anything. Maybe you sit around hoping that the equation 2 + 2 = will put 4 dollars in your checking account but it won't. Gravity did not create matter. I have about a thousand things to add but I am burned out so I will leave this here. I will say that given only the Bible I would have expected the exact universe we have (which is why scientists are creating science fictional multiverses as fast as they can make draw them with their etch-e-sketches) and nature to be exactly what it is. God at one time sustained nature yet with the fall he left us at it's mercy with only rare exceptions, so you claims about nature are as consistent with the Bible as possible.

The Bible is evidently, a collection of books written by ancient peoples that knew very little about the world around them, ESPECIALLY in comparison to what we now know.

You seem to know a lot about a god that doesn't provide any evidence for its existence.

Good lord man, The scientific method requires observation or reproducibility in a lab. Have you got a box of Dark matter I can view? However I have no need to know the aspects of a method even scientists won't use much of the time. Why should I be concerned with their method if they arent.

Okay, so what you're not understanding about the scientific method is, everything.
I'm not sure how this can be given that it's been explained several times by several different people.

I did word that weird. They constantly claim that a process that has no exception has in fact occurred, and they claim that very very often. What method are they using for that? The old make up whatever gets grant money and is convenient method.

I just explained to you why they theorize abiogenesis.

Seriously, are you even paying attention?

How many macroevolutions have you witnessed?

I'm not an evolutionary biologist. However, I (and anyone else) can read peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject which have been written by people who have. That's another one of the beauties of science, it's available to anyone who takes the time to look for it. It's about as open and honest as it gets.

Did you see any of the thousands of extremely improbable events that were necessary billions of years ago to even get a universe for anything to evolve in? How many fish have you seen adapt to life on land? How many offspring of any of those dinosaur fossils did you witness mutations in? None, didn't think so. I believe in evolution to (the extent may be different) but it is based on reasoned faith and I am at least honest enough to admit it.

Go read some articles from scientific journals. Sheesh.

If it wasn’t for the shoulders of science giants like:
Leonardo da Vinci
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Sir Isaac Newton
Gottfried Leibniz
Antoine Lavoisier
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Nicola Tesla
Max Planck
Guglielmo Marconi
Niels Bohr
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Michael Polanyi
Enrico Fermi
Allan Sandage
etc...adinfinitum
http://brainz.org/50-most-influential-christians-all-time/

Science would still be bleeding people to death for a cold and killing them by the tens of thousands by not knowing enough to wash between surgeries

LOL No it wouldn't.

Both of which the Hebrews knew about 3000 years ago and science still didn’t in the 19th century.

Wait a minute, the Hebrews knew about microscopic germs? Why didn't they posit germ theory 3000 years ago then?

Not to mention knowing about the global sea currents, hydrological cycles, and the fact that time, matter and space began to exist. Some of these your guys did not know until the last hundred years or so,

Us guys who?

yet the Hebrews knew them before the Greek ' "scientists" were producing classics like "everything is composed of water" or that "The body is full of good and bad humors" I have had it with this sarcastic arrogant crap. You and your assumed omniscience are just too much. Why is it always the evolution crowd that does this?

This is just too much now. The evolution crowd is the one that has "assumed omniscience?" Are you kidding me?? This coming from a person who apparently knows all about an invisible creator of the universe who has provided absolutely no evidence of its existence.

Stop trying to make science into a religion. It's not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Would that experiment have happened if the scientists didn't apply their intelligence. I get your point, but when initial conditions are determined they are based on assumptions on top of assumptions on top of guesses (intelligence is heavily involved).

But they aren't. They're based on reasoned evidence, inquiry and relevant facts. You can't just dismiss anything that scientists do as "assumptions on top of guesses".

They all fail to produce life.

They weren't trying to produce life, they were trying to demonstrate that early earth conditions would produce organic matter from inorganic compounds. They managed to demonstrate that by showing that amino acids form naturally. It may not be much in your eyes, but it most definitely implies that life can form naturally under early earth conditions.

By all means keep doing them but I would prefer only the parameters and results, not what they are spun up to be. Can you agree that the need to produce exciting and meaningful results just about outstrips every other motivation for a theoretical scientist?

No. The need produce facts far outstrips every other motivation for a theoretical scientist.

Saying galaxies should not hold together is boring, saying it is a new type of matter called dark matter (even though not one atom of dark matter has ever been detected) is what is claimed for it's effect and grant money potential.

Please produce facts detailing the amount of money put forward into funding research into dark matter and the conspiracy of silence on the parts of scientists to defraud people en massed out of grant money.

I never claimed the contrary. I would have predicted that lower than equilibrium complexity is created by nature constantly. Let me give an example. If you break up a thousand piece puzzle and put it in a bad and shake it up. You will occasionally get a piece or two maybe even 3 or 4 on rare occasions. That is low equilibrium. You will never get a few hundred or the billions needed for life. Why? Because the odds of good things coming apart is far greater than good things getting together.

But that probability calculation is based only a system coming together through random chance. It doesn't take account of the laws that govern physical, chemical and biological processes. Nobody in the field of abiogenesis is claiming that the building blocks of life came together "randomly", so the calculation is meaningless.

No it's proof for what nobody denies nature can and does produce very low level complexity.

The term "proof" does not belong in science. It is evidence.

Why don't you understand that throwing three balls in the air and having them land in a line is one thing, throwing 3.2 billion and that happening is quite another. The first thing does not justify even faith in the other.

And why don't you understand that these analogies are completely inaccurate representations of the matter at hand? This is not a completely random process that happened in an instant - it is a complex chemical process that took millions upon millions of years.

It is dishonest. Please note how I use the far more innocuous term dishonest instead of the offensive term lying. This is what you said: Not a single example of anything supernatural ever occurring has ever been observed.[/FONT][/COLOR]
There is no mention of proof in that statement.

There was in the follow-up sentence: "Until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist, the answer to the origin of life is always most likely going to be natural - just as the answer to every other question ever answered by science has been."

You cooked that up when I called you on it. You said no one has ever observed a supernatural event. How would you know even if it's true?

Because nobody has ever demonstrated that an event has a supernatural cause. If I'm wrong, please demonstrate it or present some examples of people doing so.

Claiming to know what you can't possibly know is lying because it is intentional and no mistake, however I will only use dishonest because I am not typing for effect.

If it is dishonest, then please demonstrate to me that the supernatural exists.

There are literally billions of claims of experiencing the supernatural.

And not a single one of those claims, in the history of the world, has ever been demonstrated to actually be supernatural.

There is an appearance of Mary in Mexico or south America I think, seen by hundreds of thousands.

Sources?

I do not believe in any Mary miracle but I do know enough to not call thousands of people: so stupid they think a lady is running around on a roof when there isn’t one.

I'd be happy to say that either those thousands of people are wrong, are being duped, or are experiencing a form of mass hysteria, however. Or, those thousands of people don't exist and the story is a complete facade, which is also a possibility.

I myself rule out 98% of them just because I am skeptical but I KNOW they do happen I have experienced the supernatural in unmistakable ways a few times.

And can you demonstrate that they were supernatural, or are there any more reasonable explanations?

WRONG again, I have experienced it. I do not need to know anything else.

People claim to have "experienced" alien abduction, karma, enlightenment and reincarnation. I'm not interested in what people experience, I'm interested in the facts.

Nope, why should I?

Because you're claiming it is, and if you want to make a claim you have to demonstrate that claim. Unless you can demonstrate that the events you experienced were supernatural, I cannot conclude that you have sufficient rational justification for attributing those experiences to supernatural causation.

If you can actually make life in a lab like a thousand headlines have claimed they have I will see you on time magazine. Why do you have a Nobel prize?

I've not made that claim. Neither I nor can scientists can be blamed for the media for misrepresenting the claims of scientists for the sake of eye-catching headlines.

I will let this slide even though it is not as easy to separate the terms as you might want to believe.

Yes it is. A liar is someone who intentionally misleads people in an attempt to obscure the truth. Someone who is wrong is just someone who is operating under a misapprehension but isn't aware that their position or their beliefs are based on something that isn't necessarily true.

There, I just separated the terms, and it was extremely easy. I don't think religious people are intentionally lying, as if they know the truth and are trying to obscure it. I just think they're wrong.

The point is you have no way of knowing either way yet you are making a claim to knowledge which is dishonest whether you can get out of calling them liars or not.

What claims am I making, exactly?

I have read two experiments years ago where Oxygen was removed because Oxygen breaks everything apart.

So? How does that obscure the results of the experiment?

Nope every one of those 4 or 5 points is a fact.

Okay then, please demonstrate, clearly and concisely, exactly how abiogenesis being true would cripple the food industry. I cannot wait to hear that one.

However since you arrogantly think peanut butter which I never mentioned is a terrible argument then why don’t you prove why it is so bad.

Because it operates under a childish misapprehension that, if abiogenesis were true, life would spontaneously arise out of almost any organic matter at a moment's notice. If that's not the argument you're making, then please specify.

Is this your refutation? It is not convenient so no matter how many degrees they have they can't be accurate, but your guys are.

It doesn't matter how many degrees they have if their calculation is rendered meaningless at a cursory glance.

I never ever see this level of arrogance, assumptions, sarcasm, and cherry picking from any other issue but atheistic evolution. I have had enough of all four for the time being.

Can you or can you not refute my argument?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Accuse me of lying again and there will not be any discussion of any kind. Lying implies intent and even if I had intent, you can't possibly know that.

I know that anybody who has studied genetics for more than few seconds, or even done a basic search on Google, would know that the claim "99.999...% of mutations are lethal" is completely and utterly absurd. I assume you've done at least some basic research into the subject of genetics, otherwise you wouldn't be involved in this debate, therefore I conclude that you have - at some point or another - seen sufficient evidence to know that this claim is as ridiculous as claiming the sky is made of fish.

In this case I meant non beneficial but had lethal on my mind from a previous discussion and mistakenly typed it in my statement. Your insinuation of lying is what was dishonest.

So, let me get this straight: You made a typo which caused you to write something that is utterly and completely contrary to the truth, and I'M dishonest for calling it a lie? Instead of doing all these mental gymnastics, why don't you just say "Actually, that was just a typo - I meant to say 'non-beneficial', I apologize for the confusion".

In any case, are you therefore admitting that mutations CAN be beneficial?

I am mistaken at times, but I have no need to lie and certainly not in that minor issue.

You think it's a "minor issue" to "accidentally" state that the vast majority of mutations are lethal?

Do you actually think I care what you think enough to go through the trouble of lying?

It's pretty much the entire basis of the creationist movement, so yes.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by 1robin
Do you actually think I care what you think enough to go through the trouble of lying?

It's pretty much the entire basis of the creationist movement, so yes.

:clap

 

[paarsurrey]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Reason helped by its conjugal partner revelation can only find God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

:clap

It was a cheap shot, I admit, but true nonetheless.

 

[1robin]

How complex is your god?

I am not qualified to say. It does not matter anyway, when considering the absolutely necessary, uncaused first cause. Philosophers say a disembodied mind is a very simple concept but all such claims are speculative.

 

[PolyHedral]

I am not qualified to say. It does not matter anyway, when considering the absolutely necessary, uncaused first cause. Philosophers say a disembodied mind is a very simple concept but all such claims are speculative.

A disembodied mind is one of the most complicated objects possible when you include all the information you need to describe how the mind thinks.

Regardless, an omnipotent God is functionally an infinitely complicated hypothesis, because it has no constraints.

 

[Ouroboros]

Note: disembodied mind isn't necessarily without matter. For instance, "Brain in a vat" is considered a "disembodied" mind.

 

[1robin]

It was a cheap shot, I admit, but true nonetheless.

Then I no longer see a reason to continue this discussion. Insinuations and theatrics are hallmarks of less than honorable motivations