INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Skeptisch]

It may mean nothing to you (big surprise), but it means something to people who care about what is true and what isn't; to people who care about fully understanding the world we live in; to people with inquisitive minds who want explanations.

Well said!
It is a pleasure to read you, and your point by point rebuttals through reason and logic are very much appreciated… by at least this poster.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen-"reducing" gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.

The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photo dissociation of water vapor.

This is false. The current evidence indicates that the earth's early atmosphere a mildly reducing one, full of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor.
See: -Kasting, J. F. 1993. Earth's early atmosphere. Science 259: 920-926.
-Tian, F., O. B. Toon, A. A. Pavlov and H. De Sterck. 2005. A hydrogen-rich early Earth atmosphere. Science 308: 1014-1017.
-Chyba, C. F. 2005. Rethinking Earth's early atmosphere. Science 308: 962-963

I think I already mentioned earlier that the dominant scientific view is that earth's early atmosphere contained about 0.1% of oxygen, or less. Free oxygen in our atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis so it follows that before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we should expect to find little oxygen in the atmosphere, because there would be no source for it.

Furthermore, there are a wide variety of environments that favor the production of amino acids, not simply the one produced in one of the Miller-Urey experiments.

2. Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19–24, p. 20)

"When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al. 1999; Cooper et al. 2001). DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone. UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis (Mulkidjanian et al. 2003; Mullen 2003).

Furthermore:
"The molecules need not all have stayed exposed to UV for long. Some would have dissolved in oceans and lakes. In one proposed scenario, the complex organic molecules form in the deep ocean around geothermal vents, well away from ultraviolet light."
CB030.1: UV effect on early molecules

3. All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller–Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

Umm, biochemicals are formed in the lab all the time.

What happened in that particular Miller-Urey experiment was that the amino acids stuck to the glass of the beaker. This is an easily repeatable experiment. What's the problem?

4. Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

Well gee, I would hope that biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals.

The current scientific view is that the formation of the cell would have happened long after the formation of life though scientists aren't exactly sure how or when. So What's the problem?

5. No geological evidence has been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup. See "Primeval soup — failed paradigm"

I'm not so sure this is the prevailing view, but so what if it hasn't been found. Does anyone really think that the conditions currently present on earth should be identical to those found on the earth billions of years ago?

How about maybe, the ocean?

6. Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If it wasn't true, life would be impossible.

Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See "Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem."

Amino acids are produced and accumulate in a wide variety of natural
environments including those that have been found elsewhere in our solar system. Hmmmm ...

7. Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than functional molecules. See "Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem."

So? What do you think this means?

8. Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (‘formose’) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See "The RNA World: A Critique."

Obviously there are some conditions under which sugar can form, otherwise, there would be no sugar. So this doesn't appear to be a universal law which appears to be the assertion here.

9. Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemical are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).

Except that we know that biochemicals aren't actually destroyed faster than they're formed.

And who argues that we need long time periods to explain abiogenesis?

10. Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See "Origin of life: Instability of building blocks."

Under which conditions is he referring, because obviously they do form and are stable under some conditions.

Furthermore, if both ribose and cytosine are always hard to form and always very unstable (which they aren't), the continuance of life would be impossible. [/quote]

That's all I am going to do for now. This is pretty tedious. I would suggest in the future, not just cutting and pasting nonsense from creationist websites, especially when those creationists seem to be under the impression that the theory of evolution is synonymous with the origins of life, which of course, it isn't. Safarti's above claims have been refuted all over the internet, you can read those.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what? He cheats so he can create one of the simplest steps but still needs a billion more complex ones and you claim that it does not matter, life came from non-life. That is so absurd I do not think this is a conversation worth having. If I cheated and passed one question on the Pilot test would you let me fly your family around? Either create life or quit claiming you know it happened, it is very simple.

Nobody claims they know exactly how it happened, hence all the experimentation! He didn't cheat, get over it. I also have to ask why you keep ignoring all the other studies that have not only replicated the Miller-Urey findings, but have gone above and beyond them.

I do not come in to work drink a cup of coffee and there for claim I got all the bugs out of the Rubidium gas oscillator and rebuilt the entire F-15 intermediate automated test system and go home.

What are you talking about?

Even if this was true 1% of fire near 99% gas is pretty destructive. No, that is the old model. The new model is less than fact but gaining ground everyday:

Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric assumptions on their heads with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere — including water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.

[URL]http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/12/life-catalyst-atmosphere-of-early-earth-was-dominated-by-oxygen-rich-compounds.html[/URL]

Let us know when this is replicated and confirmed by further study. (That's if I take your reporting of it at face value.)

1. Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old showed that "there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere. To have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it, placing these organisms much earlier in Earth’s history than previously thought." (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on Earth, 24 March 2009) NB: these "dates" are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds—see "How long were the days mentioned in the Biblical creation account?" and "Evidence for a Young World").
2. Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemical. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:19–24, p. 20)

I just responsed to this creationist nonsense on another post.

So you do not care that he cheated to get what pathetically inadequate stuff he did.

I don't agree that he cheated, and I don't agree that his finding are pathetically inadequate. Obviously you do, because you don't like the outcomes.

This is not science this is lunacy.

It is indeed science, and it is verifiable, demonstrable and repeatable. Maybe someday you'll look into the plethora of other studies that have been carried out on the subject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You might as well pick up a handful of dirt and claim to have invented a man because it has carbon in it. Not the right carbon and only half of the types needed for any life for. Again simply do what you claim and there is no room for contention. Until then quit claiming it's true.

Quit claiming what is true? That organic matter can form naturally from inorganic matter? Nope. Not as long as it's the truth.

And I'm sorry but your analogy stinks again. This is nothing like picking up dirt and claiming you've created a human.

I sure you can and will but it won't get you any life. Abiogenesis states that LIFE only comes from LIFE. Not that scientist can't cheat and make some of half of one of the millions of things needed for life. Things stand as they always have, life comes from life without exception and I have no idea what you think these experiments prove, aside from the fact a scientist will use a million of a gram of evidence to claim a metric ton of proof.

Wow, you are in serious denial.

Abiogenesis does not state that LIFE only comes from LIFE. I don't know where you get this "millions of things needed for life" assertion from. I have no idea why you still don't understand what I think these experiments prove, as I and many others have explained this to you more times than I can count. Seriously, do you take things in when you read them or not? And finally, your opinions don't count as facts. Nobody cares if you personally believe that life only comes from life. That doesn't make it so, and the evidence contradicts your personal opinion.

What you are claiming is that gets us closer to life than we ever were and it is wrong.

Uh, because now we know for sure that organic matter can form naturally from inorganic matter, which is something we didn't know before. So yeah, it does get us closer to understanding how the first life was formed on earth. Hello!?

It was already universally conceded that low equilibrium complexity can arise by nature. Two sticks falling off a tree might land parallel a few times, 10000 never will. I never said otherwise. Nature make iron, wood, crystals, nitrogen etc., what it doesn't make is 747s, Elephants, or biological computers without information it can't produce either.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra or something. And you keep making poor analogies. Nobody claims that iron will turn into a 747 over time, that's one of the worst arguments ever made.

I knew of them long before you posted them and they were ignored because they haven't gotten out of the low complexity starting gate to even get on the road to produce life.

LOL Oh, is that why you keep ignoring them? Puh-lease!

Again just show the simplest cell grew on it's own. Don't get some copper and tell me MIG-29s sprang up by natural processes.

Scientists will get there, they've already got this far.

And again, nobody is telling you that non-replicating, non-biological structures formed naturally from copper.

I will use this example to show that faults and dishonesty in those experiments:
Sol Spiegelman was able to produce a life form with just 48 nucleotides. This has nothing what so ever to do with the creation of life from non-life. He started with life (a virus) and actually made it less complex. So? You know why he started with life (BECAUSE HE NOR ANYONE ELSE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY).
This is getting old, produce some life or admit your belief it exists is faith not science.

Here, I'll put it to you in Spiegelman's own words:

"Long before cells were invented, there could have been selective forces that pushed nucleic acid molecules to greater and greater length and complexity in order to solve the selective problems."

If I am trying to see if Hoover dam arose on its own then the fact I can only get two bricks to stack on each other is a failure. I never said anything one way or another about organics. Organic does not equal alive. The law of abiogenesis is referred to as a law because it has no known exceptions, none. This is getting redundant and tiresome. Either produce it (it is that easy to prove your claim) or quit claiming you know it happened, and then get back to me. If I claim and you disagree that golf balls exists, I would settle it by getting you a golf ball not talking about trajectories of the making of 1 gram of gutta-percha in a lab.

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you're being extremely obtuse here. This is how we get a feel for the bigger picture, we start small, work up our knowledge and evidence base and them put all the pieces together. This is how science works. We don't get to know everything about everything all at once, as much as we want that to happen. We have to start somewhere, and this is it.

It's like I said above, if somebody discovers some basic foundational principle that may one day lead to a cure for cancer, but not the actual cure, in your mind, they should just give up and admit that god causes cancer and just move on. Sorry, but some of us are interested in explanations and demonstrable truths - these things don't come overnight.

It is very simple. I said life only arose from life.
You say no it came about by unintentional nature.
Simply produce this life, known to have arisen without intelligence. Then I will retract my claim.
If you can’t then you should retract yours.
This is the same old inch of evidence and light year of claim.

What you said is that the supernatural is the only known cause of life. You have yet to provide evidence for the existence of said supernatural.


I said it came about naturally, as the only explanations we have for everything we know come from natural explanations and the fact that we know the natural exists and we can test it. We are not in the same boat here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well said!
It is a pleasure to read you, and your point by point rebuttals through reason and logic are very much appreciated… by at least this poster.

Aww shucks. Thank you for saying so, I really appreciate it.

Honestly, I was thinking the same about you, and some others on here, who I feel are much better at getting your points across than I am.
I'm beginning to feel a bit like I'm smashing my head against a wall on this one. :areyoucra

 

[1robin]

Right.

"Creating" is really about remodeling, reforming, and renewing. Creation is a form of Evolution. A painter for instance uses existent paint, canvas, material, motif, tools, etc. And "creates" something new by applying existing paint to existing canvas using existing tool, etc. Nature "creates" constantly when a plant grows up in a spot where nothing has grown before, or the plant looks slightly different than any other "sibling". Or when a sand dune is formed in a spot and shape different than before. It's all what real creativity is about.
That "creative" force (spirit according to Thief) of existing material is infinite, eternal, and non-changing (in the sense that it will always do this). The existing material (substance according to Thief) is also infinite and eternal, and will always exist. Spirit and substance are two, yet one, and omnipresent and eternal.

Creating is about creating and is something that nature can't do and not what the primary definition of that word means though it can in rare cases. Evolution is about changing and remodeling but not creating.

 

[1robin]

Do you allow for illusion to be included in the creative process?

I would certainly allow for the obvious illusion in the explenation of the creation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

...Evolution is about changing and remodeling but not creating.

Not Really 1robin,

"The creation of a world... is not "making something out of nothing"; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden. By and by the elements will again be scattered, the form will disappear, but nothing is really lost or annihilated; ever new combinations and forms arise from the ruins of the old."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 204-206

 

[1robin]

The problem is there is no basis that anything has ever come from nothing.

However there is a basis for asserting that nothing is what indeed we had before the big bang. Of course having nothing is a paradox.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I do not get it.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
1:1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word ceate was translated from : ברא bara'

It means: Verb

בָּרָא (bará) (pa'ál construction)

1. To create.

ברא - Wiktionary

OR:

1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

It is translated 42 times in the Bible as create and only 9 times as to change.

This requires no additional debunking.

The whole point is it never said anywhere that God created the earth from nothing. Nor does it say anywhere that there was a time when God dwelt in absolute nothingness.

 

[godnotgod]

However there is a basis for asserting that nothing is what indeed we had before the big bang. Of course having nothing is a paradox.

Since Time did not yet exist, there was no such thing as 'before'.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

However there is a basis for asserting that nothing is what indeed we had before the big bang. Of course having nothing is a paradox.

That would be something coming from nothing and nothing comes from nothing. Face it you have nothing to back you up.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Is it not a law of physics that every action is in fact a reaction?

 

[godnotgod]

irobin ACTUALLY SAID THIS:
"No he [GOD] created straight sticks which his power maintained the straightness of. Once the stick refuse the power it drooped and produced crooked sticks ever since.":biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[camanintx]

Is it not a law of physics that every action is in fact a reaction?

You're thinking of Newton's Third Law of Motion which says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but that only applies to physical objects in motion.

 

[1robin]

irobin ACTUALLY SAID THIS:
"No he [GOD] created straight sticks which his power maintained the straightness of. Once the stick refuse the power it drooped and produced crooked sticks ever since."

The fact you find this absurd, says more about you than me. This sensationalistic childish nonsense in less than honorable and made only for effect. This isn't high school. I do not know why I am bothering but in this context, we were originally made morally perfect, we were able to be morally perfect by our relationship with God and his power. When we rejected God the power went away and we became corrupted. We have no gotten so corrupt we do not know what morality is any longer. Many say an illusion and others whatever they happen to want. Now either say something relevant and mature of give it up. This type of stuff will not merit any further dialogue.

 

[Skeptisch]

I just responsed to this creationist nonsense on another post.

To validate creationism one needs to replace:

Science with pseudoscience
Reason with unreason
Intellectual honesty with dishonesty

Or we can have faith that the many CEMs (Creation Evidence Museums) all over North America are presenting scientific rather that pseudoscientific evidence.

This CEM (Creation Evidence Museum), opened in 1984, it proudly bills itself as a "scientifically chartered museum." Its founder and director, Carl Baugh, Ph.D., sees it as a natural extension of his life's work -- to topple Darwin's theory of evolution by proving that people and dinosaurs lived together.

Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To validate creationism one needs to replace:

Science with pseudoscience
Reason with unreason
Intellectual honesty with dishonesty

Apparently, something many people have absolutely no problem doing.

 

[Skeptisch]

Apparently, something many people have absolutely no problem doing.

Scary but soooo true… :witch:

 

[1robin]

Not Really 1robin,

"The creation of a world... is not "making something out of nothing"; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden. By and by the elements will again be scattered, the form will disappear, but nothing is really lost or annihilated; ever new combinations and forms arise from the ruins of the old."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 204-206

Well hello again Investigate truth. There is no escape from creation out of nothing from either a scientific perspective of a theological one. The dominant theory of modern cosmology as is indicated in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem and many others is that we know of one finite universe. Almost all trends in modern cosmology are consistent with that. In fact you get back scientific nonsense when you consider an infinite universe.

1. Entropy would have produced a heat dead and maximal entropy universe infinitely long ago if the universe had no beginning. All stars would have burned out; everything would have expanded so far apart not one atom could be seen with a telescope from another.

2. An infinite universe means that there are an infinite number of past seconds. It is impossible to transverse an infinite series of anything and therefore no way to have arrived at this current second.

3. This also means an infinite series of past events could not have been sequentially crossed to arrive at this one.

There exists no actual infinite in nature. Infinity is an abstract concept only and is a logical paradox that can't actually exist. Any effort to get around this if one's religion or science will not abide these simple ideas lie in the realm of science fiction, fantasy, and wishful thinking.

The Hebrew word translated as creation in the Bible is used to mean creation from nothing 42 times in the Bible and change of existing things less than 15 times.
Both the Bible and science line up as usual and Baha'i is left to confuse and obscure everything in order to make its doctrines work (sounds like the same old broken record).

Both the science and Biblical theology concerning a finite universe are based on overwhelmingly better evidence than what exists for an eternal universe. In fact there is no evidence for an eternal universe only guesses and speculation.