There's no evidence that there is a creator?

[gnostic]

This depends what we mean by evidence. Scientific evidence is neutral, it doesn't prove anything divine or disprove a creator. There are things that happen rather naturally with the natural laws in our universe. An omniscient designer would only need to design, tweak the laws and let his experiment produce what they had in mind.

That‘s just unsubstantiated conjecture and wishful thinking, the part I have boldened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is real weak. You will have to make a better support. Fingerprint is not science? Somebody help me.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fing...6&sr=8-1&keywords=the+science+of+fingerprints

Buy the book and will sound a little smarter.

That is real weak. You will have to make a better support. Fingerprint is not science? Somebody help me.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fing...6&sr=8-1&keywords=the+science+of+fingerprints

Buy the book and will sound a little smarter.

No, it is not "science" any more than a television is " science ". One is merely matching patterns. Science was used to develop the idea, just as science was used to develop the parts that make up a television. But calling it science only demonstrates that one does not know what science is in the First place.

 

[Kenny]

No, it is not "science" any more than a television is " science ". One is merely matching patterns. Science was used to develop the idea, just as science was used to develop the parts that make up a television. But calling it science only demonstrates that one does not know what science is in the First place.

Tell that to the FBI

 

[gnostic]

That is not the way I see it. I see evidence for the existence of God all over the place.

I'm not really seeing much evidence that God is kind to everybody. I actually see evidence that God is quite cruel, and believe he wants us to suffer and die in this life, but give us great reward in the next life. ( As suffering and death glorified Christ, I believe suffering and death will bring us glory. Just my personal belief.)

I'm convinced that God has a select few people that he speaks clear messages to. It seems to me God has favorites.

Just because God doesn't speak to most people clear messages, and just because there's a lot of suffering and misery in the world that God doesn't prevent, doesn't mean there is no evidence that God exists.

All of this above, are not testable and falsifiable evidences.

They are your personal belief, not scientific evidences.

So as far this thread is concern, it is “no”, because you haven’t presented any evidences regarding to “the Creator”, only your reasonings and justifications for your belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell that to the FBI

The FBI would understand your error.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Tell that to the FBI

The FBI is well aware of the pitfalls of fingerprint evidence. There are known instances where the wrong person was identified by fingerprints even though there were multiple point matches that met all of the criteria set out by the FBI. The interpretation of fingerprints is subjective and it lacks many objective standards. This is why prosecutors don't rely on fingerprint evidence alone but on many lines of independent evidence, especially when there are only partial or poor quality fingerprints to work from.

DNA fingerprinting, on the other hand, is objective. You can actually calculate the probability of the DNA at a crime scene being matched to the wrong person due to the known distribution of the DNA markers in the human population. If enough markers are used in DNA fingerprinting then the probability of a false match can be greater than the current size of the human population.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

To all these dear people who just post responses that don't amount to anything.

1) You haven't disproved that the police were lying and there is no reason for them to lie

You still don't understand the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that they are telling the truth using evidence.

3) If it wasn't a supernatural event, you haven't given one iota that contradicts, disproves or makes the event any less supernatural.

You haven't produced a shred of evidence that it was a supernatural event. The burden of proof lies with you.

 

[Kenny]

The FBI is well aware of the pitfalls of fingerprint evidence. There are known instances where the wrong person was identified by fingerprints even though there were multiple point matches that met all of the criteria set out by the FBI. The interpretation of fingerprints is subjective and it lacks many objective standards. This is why prosecutors don't rely on fingerprint evidence alone but on many lines of independent evidence, especially when there are only partial or poor quality fingerprints to work from.

DNA fingerprinting, on the other hand, is objective. You can actually calculate the probability of the DNA at a crime scene being matched to the wrong person due to the known distribution of the DNA markers in the human population. If enough markers are used in DNA fingerprinting then the probability of a false match can be greater than the current size of the human population.

Yes - there is a Science to it as you have shared

 

[Kenny]

You still don't understand the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that they are telling the truth using evidence.g


You haven't produced a shred of evidence that it was a supernatural event. The burden of proof lies with you.

What you are saying is a lot different to just saying “it isn’t true”

BUT for the seeker

World Christian Doctors Network

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What you are saying is a lot different to just saying “it isn’t true”

“I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!” --J. K. Rowling

 

[Kenny]

“I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!” --J. K. Rowling

However, we do have the actual events which is different than just believing anything is real. In the absense of any natural explanation, "miracle" is still the best option.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

However, we do have the actual events which is different than just believing anything is real. In the absense of any natural explanation, "miracle" is still the best option.

When has that ever been true? Can you name one time when the cause for a phenomenon has been verified to be a supernatural cause?

 

[Kenny]

When has that ever been true? Can you name one time when the cause for a phenomenon has been verified to be a supernatural cause?

Do you have proof that this has been verified to be a natural cause?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have proof that this has been verified to be a natural cause?

You have the burden of proof backwards, as usual. And especially in a part of Christianity that is rife with frauds. Since every case of such "cures" at revivals have never been confirmed and quite often refuted the assumption until proven otherwise is that this is most likely fraud. You should be asking yourself the question "If this was real why is there no reliable documentation of the event?"

 

[Kenny]

You have the burden of proof backwards, as usual. And especially in a part of Christianity that is rife with frauds. Since every case of such "cures" at revivals have never been confirmed and quite often refuted the assumption until proven otherwise is that this is most likely fraud. You should be asking yourself the question "If this was real why is there no reliable documentation of the event?"

Standard reply.

I can assume you have no ability to prove that this was false and no way to prove is wasn't supernatural

next question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Standard reply.

I can assume you have no ability to prove that this was false and no way to prove is wasn't supernatural

next question?

Yes, that is the standard reply because you made the standard error. You need to check into this woman. Apparently she is a fraud. She will not allow others to see her medical records. That is her right, but it also takes away all legitimate claims of being healed.

It is far more likely that a person would do this for personal gain rather than it being a miracle. And if the person hides their condition it is almost certainly a fraud.

The burden of proof is upon you not me. When I claim that life evolved I can supply endless evidence. The problem is that most creationists do not even understand the concept. And they tend to be cowards when it comes to learning.

You can't prove that almost certainly fraudulent event is real so you try to falsely put the burden of proof upon others. You brought up this video that means that the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, that is the standard reply because you made the standard error. You need to check into this woman. Apparently she is a fraud. She will not allow others to see her medical records. That is her right, but it also takes away all legitimate claims of being healed.

It is far more likely that a person would do this for personal gain rather than it being a miracle. And if the person hides their condition it is almost certainly a fraud.

The burden of proof is upon you not me. When I claim that life evolved I can supply endless evidence. The problem is that most creationists do not even understand the concept. And they tend to be cowards when it comes to learning.

You can't prove that almost certainly fraudulent event is real so you try to falsely put the burden of proof upon others. You brought up this video that means that the burden of proof is upon you.

And your source?

throughout I have given a site that doctors contribute, I have given another example that was filled with documentation...

at some point, I have to come to the conclussion that those who aren't interested will never have enough proof

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where are thAnd your source?

throughout I have given a site that doctors contribute, I have given another example that was filled with documentation...

at some point, I have to come to the conclussion that those who aren't interested will never have enough proof

The only source for that I found is a Youtuber that mirrored her video where she tells that she did not have a spinal injury, she had a brain injury. And all I can find on her is that she had an injury that doctors said she might not recover from, and that was from a Christian source. The problem is that there are no reliable sources for this claim. You would think that if a Christian actually went through a real miracle cure that she would want the whole world to know it and would release her records. That she has not is evidence against her claims.

Where are the documents for this particular claim? I have not seen your supposed source, but the odds are that it is not reliable. Remember, Christians lie for their beliefs just as followers of other religions lie for theirs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Do you have proof that this has been verified to be a natural cause?

Is the burden of proof really that hard to figure out?

If you are claiming that something is caused by the supernatural, then it is up to YOU to supply evidence for this claim.

 

[Kenny]

Is the burden of proof really that hard to figure out?

If you are claiming that something is caused by the supernatural, then it is up to YOU to supply evidence for this claim.

Just look for yourself... it is self evident