Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 400. (Read 845809 times)

Evolution and the story of the Univers and Earth is incredible and fascinating; what exists is as incredible as what we see/read in SF; there are probably a lot of advanced forms of life on other planets, some most probably way more advanced than us

Okay, here is a paper completely destroying the man-tracks argument.  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF9-88Hastings.html

Also https://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/File/pdfs/american_biology_teacher/2014/ABT_Online_April_2014.pdf

It is extremely entertaining for a young-earth creationist to call somebody ignorant.  You're throwing away every bit of evidence science has found for evolution and clinging onto some fake tracks so you can believe in your skydaddy

Good science fiction article in that Wiki.   

Thank you for the wonderful link to a wonderful website.

Obviously you are a wonderful, sensitive human being. I empathize with you. I, also, do not like being pushed down a street where there only seems to be pain.

The whole goal of God is love. He loves you sooooo much, that He sent Himself in the form of Jesus to die for you, so that you can rise with Him in the resurrection, to an eternal life of love, joy, piece, yes, and even glory. We are your friends, here. Nobody - especially not Jesus - wants to cause you pain and grief.

Forget the churches and the Christians who have done you wrong. Sure, they hurt you for a moment, but many of them weren't trying to do that, and those that were trying, were doing it only because they were in some kind of pain and fear, just like you.

It is soooo wonderful when you simply give yourself over to Jesus. You don't have to keep on straining to prove your own value and worth - not even to yourself. Jesus, Himself, values you so extremely much that He wants to give you the best life of all.

When you join Him, does that mean that there will never be pain again? No. But it will all be gone in a moment, gone with the few, troubled years of this life... and when you have Jesus with you, He will never allow you to be pushed beyond what you can bear, at any time in this life. He will never place you into a position where you can't take the life He allows for you.

Jesus is calling you, now. Come. Let Him into your heart where He can soothe all your troubles of mind and soul. He loves you. Let Him take you into His heart of love. Won't you please pick Him up?, join with Him?, let your troubles and anxieties be relieved? Many of us are hoping for you.

Thanks for proving I was right not wasting an hour on him.  The so called man footprints were debunked a long time ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Science has made a amazing case for evolution over and over and over.  There is a reason only the occasional nutjob like him thinks he can disprove it.

Debunked? I don't see much counter-evidence in those 4 paragraphs of rhetoric.

Naturally, those who believe the fallacious claims of evolution theory can't be persuaded by reason and evidence. It follows that once you abandon sound judgement for wishful thinking, assumption-based reasoning, and willful ignorance (as cooldgamer demonstrated for all), then its impossible to reach the correct conclusions.

Thanks for proving I was right not wasting an hour on him.  The so called man footprints were debunked a long time ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Science has made a amazing case for evolution over and over and over.  There is a reason only the occasional nutjob like him thinks he can disprove it.

That's NOT true. There might not be evidence that you accept, but those are two wildly different scenarios.

The video link was a perfect example. You admitted you refuse even to look at it.


Appeal to authority. Doesn't matter what the Pope thinks when it comes to science, or even Christianity for that matter. The protestant revolution in the 17th century freed us from his 'authority'. The papacy was declared to have the status of a God centuries before that. If that's not fallacious, then I declare myself a pope too.


If 'solid scientific evidence' is all you need, I think human tracks beside dinosaur tracks would be an amazing proof against evolution. That's just one example of actual science in Patton's video.

I am a very skeptical person. If science could form a solid case for evolution, I'd reconsider my position. But while evolution is founded on fallacious arguments (like circular reasoning, dating fossils from rock layers, and rock layers from fossils) I'm 100% unimpressed.

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.  

Even the pope is supporting evolution.  

If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).

Be there or be there not any other revelation, we have a veritable revelation in Science — a continuous disclosure of the established order of the Universe. This disclosure it is the duty of every one to verify as far as in him lies; and having verified, to receive with all humility.

Under all changes of form, certain elements of religious belief remain constant.

We must conclude that the religious sentiment is either directly created or is developed by the slow action of natural causes, and whichever conclusion we adopt requires us to treat the religious sentiment with respect.

Hard evidence for skeptics to chew on:

In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".
Source

He is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.
Source

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."

mind is the matrix of all matter.

In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind. “Matter” refers to one way of perceiving things, and elementary particles are a lower form of mind. Mind is separate from matter.

Even the electron is in-formed with a certain level of mind

It would be kind of hard to bribe the peers since the only one that knows who they are is the journal the paper is sent to, short of them being paid off.  It is really sad that you're so desperate for something to cling on to that you're accusing some mysterious power of paying out a ton of money to keep evidence against evolution underground.  

I don't need to spend all day reading fallacies and information that has already been debunked trying to support your crazy fairy tale.

Yep, a book written by ancient stoners thousands of years ago is totally a good source to figure out the history of our earth

"How can you bribe a peer-reviewed paper?"
Bribe the peers. Or, at least, find and publish the responses of sympathetic peers, but not the others.

"We would need just one piece of evidence... "
You don't need me to Google "young earth." Then research the points that the young-earth people bring up.

"Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately."
Bill won't believe the witness record of the Bible, anyway.



EDIT: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9466228 .

I'm a current believer of the following: 

God:Universe :: Man:Thoughts

How can you bribe a peer-reviewed paper?  Science is science, people make it political.  Nobody is paying to keep the evidence of your god under wraps.  Please, show me ANY evidence from a respectable source that supports young earth creationism.  Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Most of the sciences might work like that. But political science, the one controlled by the money, works any old way it wants. And if a scientist doesn't toe the line, he doesn't get funded by big money, who just might want him/her to lie. If he doesn't get funded, his work gets lost among all the publications that GET published, because it isn't published for long if it is published at all.

Young-earth creationism has lots of evidence while old-earth has very little. It's just not evidence that is in the best interests of big money right now. So, political science makes old-earth to be published in a big way, while young-earth is downplayed... by science - political science.

We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the  extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

For any other arguments you'll come up with about the Geologic Column: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.  Even the pope is supporting evolution.  If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).

Its science that you don't like, so you dismiss it because you can't deal with the facts. Nice try though. Problem is, I'm not interested so much in Patton's authority because I'm not appealing to authority (which is a clear fallacy). I'm interested in his SCIENCE. He might not have a PHD...fine lets pretend that's true for arguments sake. Talk about the evidence that he presents. Do you have a PHD? If not, do you believe others should just accept what you say? Isn't that a double standard and a logical fallacy?

Evolution theory's most important evidence (the geologic column) is based on circular reasoning.

They date the fossils by the rock layers, and the rock layers by the fossils in them.

The complete geologic column exists nowhere on earth, only in textbooks.

The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough.  Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

    "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data.  Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.  There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section.  Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years.  However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly.  The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

If the new data have a large inconsistency (by "large" I mean orders of magnitude), it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested.  An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history. Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history (e.g., that the Earth is billions of years old) will change. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods (not only radiometric dating), and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly.  So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts (e.g., the classic "moon dust", "decay of the Earth's magnetic field" and "salt in the oceans" claims).

[
Just another guy trying to convince people that his bad science is real and evolution is a lie

Try using an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy.

You would also do well to understand what Spencer is saying.

Not possible based on overwhelming evidence; 6 reasons were given on bible.ca.
This article has discredited itself and shown its prejudice.

Fortunately, there is healthy discussion in the comments section; all the comments are great without exception; I really liked this rebuttal for example.

Is it not possible that there is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion? Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. Have we not seen how utterly unable our minds are to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena? Is it not proved that we fail because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned ? Does it not follow that the Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived?

And may we not therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever?