Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 207. (Read 845650 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 24, 2017, 04:38:23 PM
There is no need for proof for this, we just need to know what made us, after all, we are not ourselves, we all think like a set toy, we come together and come to earth.


Someone has said that there is no need to do anything except die.

We don't have an absolute need to do the things we do. We do them because we want to. Finding proof is a thing we want to do. Albeit, those who don't want proof, certainly don't have to find it, or look at it if it exists already.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
April 20, 2017, 11:12:02 AM

The fact that you are full of insults without anything to back them up, shows that you are simply another troll.

Still waiting for you to show some step-by-step rebuttal of the proof that God exists.

The fact that you can't, and especially that you can't even seem to try, shows that you are just another troll.

You destabilize your own position by calling the proof no proof at all. But if it weren't proof, you should be able to, at least, make a little start at rebuttal much easier that if you really thought it were proof.

So, thanks again for adding your support to the fact that God exists, even though it is grudging support.

Having fun, yet?  Cheesy

Cool

I am having fun Puddleduck. I have you as my furry little friend!

Ironically, you are the one who insults others by calling them out for their supposed mental incapacity. Yes you know you do this as I have pointed it out to you many times.

You still have not shown any proof, so there is nothing to disprove.

To disprove your assumptions, it's a simple case of saying that "I assume you to be a troll, therefore you don't mean what you write".

So, thanks again for adding your support to the fact that God does not exist, even though it is grudging support.

Having fun, yet?  

Since you can't even see that my proof is proof, no wonder you can't begin to show a step-by-step rebuttal. Back to the dark ages with you, then.

Cool

You got no proof.  You don't follow God's word from the Bible.  And on top of all that your God does not exist.

You want to believe that Bible is the word of God, that Earth was created by God 6000 years ago ONLY because it gives you hope
of life after death.

Unfortunately for you, your hope is just that a hope.  When you die, you die.  There is no afterlife.  No heaven, no hell just your body decomposes, you will be forgotten in few generations, nobody will even remember or know that you ever existed.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 507
April 24, 2017, 04:35:47 PM
There is no need for proof for this, we just need to know what made us, after all, we are not ourselves, we all think like a set toy, we come together and come to earth.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 24, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
I read some articles about this. It's all based on what you give a name for it.
If there are aliens who created us - did the christs say god to them anymore?

The idea of creation by aliens is simply a subterfuge. The questions then would be, who created the aliens? Who gave them life? Where did they learn about life? Do they have any controls outside of cause and effect?

God proof simply bypasses all that, a thing which would have to be done anyway, to get to the bottom of things.

Cool
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 252
April 24, 2017, 04:27:54 PM
I read some articles about this. It's all based on what you give a name for it.
If there are aliens who created us - did the christs say god to them anymore?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 24, 2017, 04:24:11 PM

How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool

Ok, so I was right.  You don't know what God is.  You said he is the 'undefined', 'unknown', yet you personified HIM, as a fertile male based on what someone WROTE in the book.

So in your world, Bible is all you need to know, Bible has all the proofs you need for the existence of God.  After all, someone (God) wrote it, right.

You are a retard.  Don't you see the problem?  'Undefined' cannot be a 'father'.

If you say HE is the father, then you anthropomorphized the 'unknown', 'undefined'.  You created HIM in your head.


You asked how I determined God's sex. The answer is  that the dictionary and the Bible say it.

In science, God is essentially undefined.

Go cry in the corner.

Cool

Ok, so we agree that God is 'undefined'. 

Now let's talk about why you believe it is a HE.
Basically you believe it is a HE because the Bible and the Christian dictionary says God is a fertile he (aka father).

How did people who wrote the Bible know God was a HE if we know now that God is 'undefined'?


Well. Your retardedness is kinda humorous, even if yur position is life should be pitied.

Like stats, you seem to be having a difficult time simply looking up at the string of posts you just replied to, above. However, not to be unexpected. Anybody who can't go outside and see God in nature, isn't going to be smart enough to look up... even if it is only at previous posts.

And, I do apologize if you are blind, or have no way to get outside because you don't have any legs. Since you are on the Internet, it would do well for you to Google pictures of the world and nature... even the simple countryside. If you are blind, get someone to describe the pictures to you in detail.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 23, 2017, 10:32:54 PM

How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool

Ok, so I was right.  You don't know what God is.  You said he is the 'undefined', 'unknown', yet you personified HIM, as a fertile male based on what someone WROTE in the book.

So in your world, Bible is all you need to know, Bible has all the proofs you need for the existence of God.  After all, someone (God) wrote it, right.

You are a retard.  Don't you see the problem?  'Undefined' cannot be a 'father'.

If you say HE is the father, then you anthropomorphized the 'unknown', 'undefined'.  You created HIM in your head.


You asked how I determined God's sex. The answer is  that the dictionary and the Bible say it.

In science, God is essentially undefined.

Go cry in the corner.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 23, 2017, 07:21:03 PM

How did you determine God's sex?  That is what I am talking about.  You personified the 'unknown' and you think it is a male.

You are just making conjectures based on the Bible stories.


Have you ever thought of using a dictionary?
father
[fah-th er]

noun

...

5. a person who has originated or established something:
the father of modern psychology; the founding fathers.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Theology. the Supreme Being and Creator; God.

...

12. the Father, Theology. the first person of the Trinity.


Or is it that you don't have dictionaries where you are at?

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 23, 2017, 11:03:04 AM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed






You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

ok, 1st of all, I'm not your son, you arrogant bastard
You are not a son or a daughter? You were born bi?  Cheesy


Denying evolution in the face of 200 years of peer reviewed science and evidence eh?
Yeah all that silly stuff that modern evolutionary biology is based on? Its all a big lie folks!
We've all been suckered. BADecker says so right here in this bitcoin thread and
he even knows about Newtons 3rd law and cause and effect so he must speak be the truth!
Are you trying to say that scientists are so pure that they wouldn't have an agenda? How could they even be scientists if that were the case.

Did you ever look at the term, "the Theory of Evolution?" Why is it a theory? Because the same evidence suggests other things that are not evolution, as well.

Two hundred years of evidence, and they still haven't proven evolution. It should really be dropped from theory status into a simple science fiction idea.



 I'm not gonna argue with ya bud.  You're too far over the cliff and its a waste of time.
But try this for starters
Its one of thousands and unlike your stupid merry go round links back to yourself
 it actually links to an outside reputable site.
Thanks for this Scientific American article/site. It helps to prove that evolution does not even belong in the category/class of theory status. How does it prove this? It shows a bunch of rebutted rebuttals.

As you say, let interested people do their own research.



 I just like coming here to troll you because I can always count on you to quote me with a good Sunday morning
laughable reply like the one above.
So anyway, be seein ya next Sunday for my quote and another good belly laugh.


              
                     http://i.imgur.com/UrCSU2u.jpg

Is that why you seldom reply directly to my posts. You have a hard time finding anything wrong with them to talk against. Rather, you simply show how ignorant you are by not recognizing that God exists.


Cool
legendary
Activity: 3388
Merit: 3514
born once atheist
April 23, 2017, 10:13:09 AM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed






You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

ok, 1st of all, I'm not your son, you arrogant bastard
 Denying evolution in the face of 200 years of peer reviewed science and evidence eh?
Yeah all that silly stuff that modern evolutionary biology is based on? Its all a big lie folks!
We've all been suckered. BADecker says so right here in this bitcoin thread and
he even knows about Newtons 3rd law and cause and effect so he must speak be the truth!

 I'm not gonna argue with ya bud.  You're too far over the cliff and its a waste of time.
But try this for starters
Its one of thousands and unlike your stupid merry go round links back to yourself
 it actually links to an outside reputable site.

 I just like coming here to troll you because I can always count on you to quote me with a good Sunday morning
laughable reply like the one above.
So anyway, be seein ya next Sunday for my quote and another good belly laugh.


             
                     
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 23, 2017, 09:39:01 AM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!


Okay. Let's see YOU define something that is so great that it acts on all the particles, energies, and dimensions of the universe, in the same way, but way better than, a pool shark manipulates the pool balls on a pool table during a game of pool. That is God.

Cool

Most religious people identify God as the "God of the gaps".  When they don't know something, when they see the complexity of the world they do not understand, they feel they need to explain it with something.  That something (the unknown and the unexplained) becomes God.  Now that is what pantheists do.

The Abramaic religions take this unknown concept further, assigning human qualities to it, adding moral codes and ethics, in some cases defining a whole legal system and create a religion.  Creating a deity/entity/independent agent out of the 'unknown'.

The worst part is the moral, ethical and legal systems created based on the God concept (the gaps in our human knowledge).  The end result is nonsense.

That is why Christian God ends up caring about what you wear, which testicles you touch, where you put your dick, what you eat and who you marry.   Muslim God also cares how many times you pray, and which direction you are facing while you are praying.  Not to mention his obsession with what women wear or who they talk to.

Atheists and agnostics leave the unknown, unknown.  The only logical way to discover the unknown is to study it.  Science has been proven as one of the best ways to learn about how the world works.
And in my opinion, it is the best way to unpeel the unknown like an onion, layer by layer.  The 'God of the gaps' gets smaller and smaller as science makes new discoveries and proves its theories with direct observations.


Yet, God exists as has been shown by the scientific proof, and by nature. Just because people don't understand what God is, doesn't have anything to do with WHAT HE IS.

God, Himself, gave the Abrahamic people through Isaac, possible the best form of religion. The Abrahamic people through Ishmael contradict the good religion of Isaac. This is not deity creation. This is acknowledging the Deity in both the right way, and a wrong way.

God cares about everything, because He is intimately in contact with every subatomic particle and wave of energy through cause and effect, right from the beginning to the present.

Since science has proven that God exists, because scientists won't study it when they study everything else, shows that they are against God.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
April 22, 2017, 06:44:20 PM
Don't worry we'll keep BSDecker in check.  He cannot just bullshit here willy-nilly.

BufferOverflow, Moloch, stats, myself and many others have exposed the obvious holes in his "proofs" on many other threads
that he keeps spamming.  I think he works on commission Smiley

The guy is in the cult, but his problem is that he is not the sharpest tool in the shed so it is hard for him to understand his predicament.
Why are you focusing only on BADecker? Did anyone ever point out the obvious holes in the 101 proofs from the OP, for example? And what about my proofs? It seems as though many proofs in this thread are simply dismissed without further consideration.

Kindly point out the obvious holes in the proofs that I have provided?

1) Chris Carter summarizes "the evidence that provides a prima facie case for survival [and] demonstrates that alternative explanations, to the extent that they are testable, have been proven false".
2) "the brain is more likely to transmit consciousness than it is to produce consciousness because the transmission hypothesis explains more facts than the production hypothesis"
3) many of the greatest scientific minds believe... that the scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Many of the smartest minds were able to comprehend the evidence. Religion came about as a way of explaining evidence that supports survival; this is evidence which comes from many and varying classes of phenomena.

Eminent researchers who recognized the truth about mind were many, often they conducted their own experiments and were critical of Darwinian theory:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Pseudo-skeptics only offer pseudo-scientific excuses for refusing to accept an otherwise straightforward inference from the evidence. Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out.

Why do atheists like to ignore those physical manifestations that suggest the survival of the personality? There are many intriguing examples.
Why no replies? Here is a document coming from American CIA:
More evidence suggestive of the idea that mind is a form of matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Why do you think atheists are ignoring anything?  If there is an evidence of something supernatural, it will be studied and understood.  Just because there are things that cannot be explained currently does not mean there is GOD or the Supreme being.  You are jumping to conclusions to fit your preconceived belief system.

Let the leading neuroscientists work on it. Consciousness is an interesting phenomenon, I agree.  Especially for us, self-aware creatures that can study it.

I am not a neuroscientist so I cannot contribute. 
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 22, 2017, 05:31:53 PM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.
All theories regarding the origin will fail due to being literally unthinkable, so your criticism is lame. Did you read Herbert Spencer's "First Principles" and disagree with it? You found a theory of origin not mentioned by Spencer? Since all such theories are unthinkable then where should Infinity BE?

Science Documentary about the Infinite:
https://youtu.be/sPtYN0hDCtM
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 22, 2017, 05:20:03 PM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

Just read the book "Atheism and Secularity" if you are seriously confused about the GOD question. In the introduction Mr. Eller states that a rational atheist would reject all spiritual thinking, and that all rational atheists are humanists, so existence of a rational being which is nonhuman would obviously call humanism (as well as atheism) into question. GOD is a rational being and is called THE supreme being.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
April 18, 2017, 08:24:47 PM
You are getting to be more like Horace all the time... lots of talk, but nothing to back up anything you say.

Cool

Just study the history. There are cultures older than 10,000  years old, structures, tools, paintings etc.

How the fuck did the Egyptians  build the pyramids if the flood happened around the time they built them.

You needed more than 50,000 slaves over the course of decades to build them.  Noah with his crew would not cut it.

You are as ignorant as the flat Earthers you deny everything that does not fit your world view.  No matter how strong the physical evidence against it is

More talk from you.

Anybody can say that there are cultures older than 10,000 years. But when you get into the details of how they determined this, you find that they really don't know, that their ages are guestimations at best.

There is evidence that some of the earlier pyramids, and the great pyramid were built before the flood. However, what does the Flood have to do with building the pyramids? Those people were less into entropy than we are, and had a lot more strength, and a lot more reproduction fertility. Populations sprang up much faster.

You don't know that you needed any slaves at all to build the pyramids. Some 5-y-o evidence says that the builders were hired professionals.

You are as ignorant as the flat Earthers you deny everything that does not fit your world view.  No matter how strong the proof against it is.

Cool

Ok then believe in your fairy tale.  You are wrong regardless of what you believe.

7000 year old Earth is a ridiculous idea but unfortunately for you it makes a perfect sense. 
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 22, 2017, 05:18:07 PM
Don't worry we'll keep BSDecker in check.  He cannot just bullshit here willy-nilly.

BufferOverflow, Moloch, stats, myself and many others have exposed the obvious holes in his "proofs" on many other threads
that he keeps spamming.  I think he works on commission Smiley

The guy is in the cult, but his problem is that he is not the sharpest tool in the shed so it is hard for him to understand his predicament.
Why are you focusing only on BADecker? Did anyone ever point out the obvious holes in the 101 proofs from the OP, for example? And what about my proofs? It seems as though many proofs in this thread are simply dismissed without further consideration.

Kindly point out the obvious holes in the proofs that I have provided?

1) Chris Carter summarizes "the evidence that provides a prima facie case for survival [and] demonstrates that alternative explanations, to the extent that they are testable, have been proven false".
2) "the brain is more likely to transmit consciousness than it is to produce consciousness because the transmission hypothesis explains more facts than the production hypothesis"
3) many of the greatest scientific minds believe... that the scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Many of the smartest minds were able to comprehend the evidence. Religion came about as a way of explaining evidence that supports survival; this is evidence which comes from many and varying classes of phenomena.

Eminent researchers who recognized the truth about mind were many, often they conducted their own experiments and were critical of Darwinian theory:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Pseudo-skeptics only offer pseudo-scientific excuses for refusing to accept an otherwise straightforward inference from the evidence. Many skeptical arguments against the survival theory are actually arguments from pseudo-skeptics who often think they have no burden of proof. Such arguments are often based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out.

Why do atheists like to ignore those physical manifestations that suggest the survival of the personality? There are many intriguing examples.
Why no replies? Here is a document coming from American CIA:
More evidence suggestive of the idea that mind is a form of matter:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 22, 2017, 01:42:47 PM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool

So you can prove something that is undefinable.  I think you can expect a call from Nobel Price committee anytime soon...

Take out your velvet suit and oil your Mossberg 500, you are going to Sweden.  Yee-ya!!!


Okay. Let's see YOU define something that is so great that it acts on all the particles, energies, and dimensions of the universe, in the same way, but way better than, a pool shark manipulates the pool balls on a pool table during a game of pool. That is God.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 22, 2017, 01:32:05 PM

Additionally, scientific evaluation of evolution, using probability math, shows that evolution is completely impossible. Cause and effect show that there is no random effect, randomness that would be necessary for mutations to exist as evolution. Irreducible complexity shows that critical stages of the evolution idea are missing, thereby moving evolution into the realm of never being able to be proven.


you really need to
1. educate yourself beyond your  bubble of pious biblical fairy tale nonsense
2. read up on some real evolutionary science. your above statement shows your complete and utter ignorance of it.
   but no surprise there.
and 3. jeezus dude...take a break from these troll fest threads once in awhile.
          unless that is you don't mind being seen as rather obsessed


You sound kinda dense. In what way? Newton's 3rd Law is still a law. Just because there has been a bunch of theory that scientists try to use to destroy Newton's 3rd Law, doesn't mean they have succeeded at all.

Talk about educating one's self, you need to educate yourself that Newton's 3rd law upholds cause and effect, and that cause and effect exists in everything, and that there is not even one example of true randomness because of cause and effect, and that mutations are programmed into the universe because of this, and that there is not even one for-a-fact example of a beneficial mutation.

Regarding the idea of a living cell coming into being by the odds of nature simply falling into place in ways that make life, consider a simple, 200 element/molecule cell. What are the odds that these parts are going to fall into place in just the right way so that they would exist where they would have to exist for the cell to be alive. The odds are tremendously high against... so high that it impossible for it to happen.

But if it happened once, then the parts would have to be kicked into motion in just the right way for the cell to become alive. Another impossibility by the odds.

Even if this happened, the surrounding nature would destroy the life as instantly as the life appeared.

Now, if you want to get away from this idea by saying that evolution doesn't include abiogenesis, great. But, it is more improbable that a living cell, or other forms of life can gain atoms and molecules in the correct places so that they could change, simply by randomness. It simply isn't in the odds according to any probability math that we have that matches nature.

Besides. Even if we were talking about non-abiogenesis evolution, abiogenesis is so extremely impossible that it couldn't happen under any circumstances that we can almost imagine. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732 for starters. Then research it, and you will find that I am right.

You have been played, son... you and all the people who think that evolution is possible or real. You've been suckered into an evolution religion. Scientists are getting rich off you jokers by getting grant money to continue experimenting, or by teaching evolution foolishness in universities. And you support it with your taxes.

Cool

Oh Puddleduck...... you silly sausage.

You claim Newtons third law (cause and effect) upholds your evidence of a god........ however, you fail to answer who made your god?

You have never been able to answer this using the same laws with which you claim proves your own god, but instead apply your own assumptions. That is where you fail.

In order to proof A, you have to define what A is.

He does not even know what God is.  Yet he is determined to 'prove it scientifically' that his undefined agent or entity exist.

Talk about a faulty logic.

God is a being Who is fantastically powerful. Yet from the scientific proof, He is simply defined as something undefinable. So God has been defined.

Cool
member
Activity: 116
Merit: 100
April 22, 2017, 08:52:42 AM
however it is faith no need to proof to believe in god
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
April 18, 2017, 02:26:00 PM
You are so funny. Have you been to the bottom of the oceans lately to check there for God? Many ancient peoples thought that the constellation, Orion, was the place that life came from. Have you been out there to check for God? What? You have it on authority that God doesn't exist in either of those places? What authority? Your own? LOL!

Perhaps you should take a night course in understanding how to interpret science law, so that you can see that God exists from the proof:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

It might even help you learn how to stay on topic.

Cool
Interpretations are not proof, exact facts are. When everyone tells you that shit you keel posting is a fail, you should get a clue. But apologists don't get too many clues, don't they? As for the proof, you may not pass the burden of proof onto me or anybody else who said they do not believe a God exists. It is your burden, not ours. You claim a God exists, you come with the exact proof. But none of you will since you have no proof. Now do as I said and fuck off outta here, you Bob Dutko ass licker.

Science laws are not interpretations. If you don't like science laws, forget this topic. This topic is about science proof that God exists. However...

If you decide to examine the science laws and how they are applied, remember that God isn't explained at all. The only reason I use the masculine pronoun with Him, is, that that's the way most people understand Him. The scientific proof for Him doesn't explain if He has a gender or not. It doesn't explain any religious aspects of Him. It simply shows that He exists... whatever He may be.

Cool
No, dumb fuck, scientific laws are not interpretation. Your bullshit is an interpretation of scientific laws and it is complete fantasy. Stop coming up with hypocrite ways of persuading this discussion in your favour, it will not work. Please fuck off and try to find your own ideas instead of pasting the same links that you've learnt on Bob Dutko's bullshit cd's. Apologist.

You're a kinda sad specimen of humanity. At least stats and af_newbie attempt to break the proof for God down a little. More than likely you can't even read it. What? Does your mama browse the Internet for you? No step-by-step rebuttal of the proof at all!

I certainly support your yakety yak against me and the proof. Since you don't have anything except yakety yak, you are shown for what you are >>> a rambling stooge for some idiot group of idiot atheists. As Han Solo said, "Laugh it up, Fuzzball." All the way to idiot stardom.

We like it. We like it. Grin

Again, the proof for the existence of God links:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

Cool

Unfortunately, he is right.  You are cherry picking your science like you pick your Bible.

You are as stupid as flat Earthers believing in 6000-7000 years old Earth.

There are cultures with more history than your Bible suggest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

So stop your Entropy nonsense.  You are not impressing anyone.  

You are as stupid as those who wrote the Bible.

You are getting to be more like Horace all the time... lots of talk, but nothing to back up anything you say.

Cool

Just study the history. There are cultures older than 10,000  years old, structures, tools, paintings etc.

How the fuck did the Egyptians  build the pyramids if the flood happened around the time they built them.

You needed more than 50,000 slaves over the course of decades to build them.  Noah with his crew would not cut it.

You are as ignorant as the flat Earthers you deny everything that does not fit your world view.  No matter how strong the physical evidence against it is
Jump to: