Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Therefore your Mona Lisa example is rubbish.

And if you do not know how it is done or when it was done then by definition you do not know how it came to be, and therefore cannot use it as evidence that a god exists.

Mona Lisa served as evidence of a painter, the world and universe is evidence of a Creator God. You can't recreate your big bang or your evolution theory. But the evidence of a creator is in your face right now

 

[ratiocinator]

Let me help you with some real scientific facts, 1 you can't see DNA.

Not with the naked eye, but we can examine DNA and see that it is consistent with evolution and inconsistent with any credible hypothesis of deliberate, individual design.

...the second is nobody was created before the world was created so that means you weren't there so it's impossible for you to witness something that took place before you were created

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable evidence, we have much better evidence than that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Let me help you with some real scientific facts, 1 you can't see DNA.

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia

"Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA is obtained by either isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using recombinant DNA methods or by artificially synthesising the DNA. A construct is usually created and used to insert this DNA into the host organism. The first recombinant DNA molecule was made by Paul Berg in 1972 by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with the lambda virus. As well as inserting genes, the process can be used to remove, or "knock out", genes. The new DNA can be inserted randomly, or targeted to a specific part of the genome."

DNA can be manipulated therefore it exists with observable results therefore it exists. We can identify DNA using ethidium bromide.

So we can observe and interact with DNA.

We can't see Wind or gravity yet we can interact with that too.

That's your first rude shock, the second is nobody was created before the world was created so that means you weren't there so it's impossible for you to witness something that took place before you were created

Correct therefore:

Nobody has ever seen anybody create DNA from scratch. Nobody has seen whole worlds created either. So false equivalence on your part.

 

[Polymath257]

Mona Lisa served as evidence of a painter, the world and universe is evidence of a Creator God. You can't recreate your big bang or your evolution theory. But the evidence of a creator is in your face right now

The only reason the Mona Lisa serves as evidence of a painter is that paintings like that don't spontaneously form from their components according to the laws of nature.

That is quite different than what happens in chemistry, for example, where the reactions *do* happen spontaneously and without outside intervention. The same can be said about the chemical reactions that constitute life, for example. At NO stage is any outside intervention required for the reactions to happen. And the structures are self-organizing.

So your comparison of the Mona Lisa and the rest of the universe is a red-herring. There is no comparison based on the merits.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Mona Lisa served as evidence of a painter, the world and universe is evidence of a Creator God. You can't recreate your big bang or your evolution theory. But the evidence of a creator is in your face right now

Nope. Sorry. No evidence.

Mona Lisa serves as an evidence of the painter because we know the painting methods and can recreate them.

We haven't seen anybody replicate the creation of the universe so the universe is no evidence of a creator.

 

[Polymath257]

The truth is, the earth was created around 6000 years ago and you guys are judging it by it's looks and not by the facts

No, we are basing it on repeatable facts, including facts about radioactive decay, the rates of weathering for rocks, the rates at which certain types of rock can form, as well as basic thermodynamics showing that the observed results would vaporize the oceans if they happened in a mere 6000 years.

Those are the facts. But you prefer a mythos to the facts.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

So you then cannot handle basic physics. From which it follows you cannot handle chemistry.

A 32 symbol mathematical formula is a *simple* one, in all likelihood. Even a basic spreadsheet to find an approximate solution to a predator-prey setup would take more.

This was about a member demanding that God explains His magical formula which He used to create all things. The member felt that he had some kind of inherent privilege to be taken back in time to watch God create everything.
It's like me saying I refuse to believe that a human painted this work, unless you take me back in time to watch him paint it

 

[Polymath257]

This was about a member demanding that God explains His magical formula which He used to create all things. The member felt that he had some kind of inherent privilege to be taken back in time to watch God create everything.
It's like me saying I refuse to believe that a human painted this work, unless you take me back in time to watch him paint it

Make a testable prediction based on your theory that can be verified by actual observations and differs from the predictions of the current model.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mona Lisa served as evidence of a painter, the world and universe is evidence of a Creator God.

But it isn't. We know how paintings are made. The raw fact of the existence of the universe does not tell us that there is a creator god. In fact, all the evidence tells us that an intelligent creator requires a universe, not the other way around. Positing a creating intelligence for the universe just leads into an infinite regress - which is why theists then resort to special pleading. "Ah, but god is magic!"

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Do "God's Laws" allow for prediction of new observations? is there any potential observation that could show them wrong? If not, then they are useless for science.

The problem is, there's nothing new in the universe. God predestined the whole of human history from the beginning to the end of time. Nothing more will be discovered than God planted for us to find. Just like we played the Easter egg hunt as kids, we can only discover what God put there for us to find and no more and no less

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Not with the naked eye, but we can examine DNA and see that it is consistent with evolution and inconsistent with any credible hypothesis of deliberate, individual design.



Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable evidence, we have much better evidence than that.

I'm sure you can see whatever you want to see, the world of fantasy is limitless

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Nope. Sorry. No evidence.

Mona Lisa serves as an evidence of the painter because we know the painting methods and can recreate them.

We haven't seen anybody replicate the creation of the universe so the universe is no evidence of a creator.

OK, I finally get it. You refuse to believe in a creator God, unless you can be a creator god yourself. Sorry I can help you with that one, you may need some special help with that

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mona Lisa served as evidence of a painter, the world and universe is evidence of a Creator God. You can't recreate your big bang or your evolution theory. But the evidence of a creator is in your face right now

We do not need to reproduce the origin of the universe. That is not how scientific ideas are tested and confirmed. We can test and confirm the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. Creationists tend to be cowards. They are afraid to come up with testable ideas. As a result they have no rational and reliable evidence for their claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is, there's nothing new in the universe. God predestined the whole of human history from the beginning to the end of time. Nothing more will be discovered than God planted for us to find. Just like we played the Easter egg hunt as kids, we can only discover what God put there for us to find and no more and no less

And when the Earth tells us in endless ways that it is billions of years old that would be God lying according to you.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

No, we are basing it on repeatable facts, including facts about radioactive decay, the rates of weathering for rocks, the rates at which certain types of rock can form, as well as basic thermodynamics showing that the observed results would vaporize the oceans if they happened in a mere 6000 years.

Those are the facts. But you prefer a mythos to the facts.

I have no doubt about your facts, you guys would have examined Adam 5 minutes after He was created and you would have sworn he was 33 years old. It's OK, you can be forgiven for using the scientific method. It's the best you can do, so we can't blame someone fro trying their best

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Make a testable prediction based on your theory that can be verified by actual observations and differs from the predictions of the current model.

The current model is based on mans tiny limited and narrow capacity to understand reality. It's the best he can muster up without admitting the stark evidence before him.
God deliberately hides the truth from proud intellectuals and reveals it to babies and simple people, so the smart people wouldn't be able to grasp the truth

 

[Wrangler]

without the plentiful evidence that it was very old (radioactive dating, geology, and so on) and that life evolved (fossils in the ground, DNA evidence, and so on), the same goes for the universe.

Age and starlight problems are classic. And they have a classic rebuttal. The atheist assumes a linear universe. They assume the rates observed today are the same as the rates yesterday. This may not be a valid assumption.

Regarding DNA, the latest research points to an Intelligent Creator.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

But it isn't. We know how paintings are made. The raw fact of the existence of the universe does not tell us that there is a creator god. In fact, all the evidence tells us that an intelligent creator requires a universe, not the other way around. Positing a creating intelligence for the universe just leads into an infinite regress - which is why theists then resort to special pleading. "Ah, but god is magic!"

OK, your welcome to hold to your theory that everything was created by nothing. Very interesting and very concerning. I would seek some professional advice about this

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

And when the Earth tells us in endless ways that it is billions of years old that would be God lying according to you.

Itr would be God lying according to you. I have already told you He doesn't use the pond scum method to create things. He creates them fully formed, finished and looking mature for your benefit

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm sure you can see whatever you want to see, the world of fantasy is limitless

Oh, the irony.