Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 427. (Read 845654 times)

This is a great summary:  


Again, this notion is not based on anything but your feeling. The Universe just is. It didn't have to be crafted and intentionally designed. It just exists, and we study it to find out how it works.


I don't know where you're getting your ideas about mutations, but they're not accurate. They don't "remove information." If you're referring to the genetic code of a species, then yes, mutations "add" information. Mutations come from transcription errors in DNA during the replication process. When cells divide, the DNA instructions are replicated, but sometimes random errors in the code occur. This process, happening trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times causes changes in the gene pool. The surrounding environment sometimes provides a benefit to some of these changes, such that the likelihood of passing them on increases. Over thousands of generations, these beneficial traits help a species survive. The mutations that are not beneficial are less likely to survive. But the mutations are not intentional, they are random. There is no way to control them. And further, they don't happen fast (one generation to the next). They happen over very, very long periods of time, over thousands and millions of generations. The conclusion "evolution is false because mutations are not always beneficial" is not logically sound.

There is absolutely nothing in evolution theory that suggests a way that the diversity and complexity in nature could have happened.

In the face of the laws of probability along with the apparent entropy we see all around, evolution is an absolute impossibility.

In fact, the continual political-like hollering of atheists and others is the only thing that keeps the idea of evolution alive.

With the creation of the Internet, as people come to realize the truth that evolution is impossible, even the hollering will soon die.

Please talk to a psychiatrist, you seem to have very severe depression if you hate living on this planet.  Not even being Sarcastic.

Back to the topic, the science of evolution is based on observation.  We have made organisms evolve in a lab right before our eyes.  Dog breeding works the same except with humans deciding which traits to keep instead of nature.  We can observe our common ancestors by looking at the body compared to other primates.  While the fossil record is not complete, what we have so far points to evolution.  

I don't believe in spiderman because there are fans of his enemies, that is pretty much the logic you're going on for saying satanism proves it.  Same with saying gods word proves it, says so right there in the comic that he is real!

Should we accept that?  

Like I said earlier, if I am wrong what is the cost? (I followed the Bible, tried to love others with God's help, lived a joyful life only to realize at death that it was for nothing?)

For those that believe this life is all there is, what is their cost? (eternal punishment with weeping and gnashing of teeth in flames of fire)

One of these choices is riskier than the other it appears.

Herein lies the truth. Religious folk simply can't accept that this is their one and only life.

Then where did all the species come from?  Answer:  Evolution.

Go stick your head back in the sand.

The only science I do not agree with is the science that is not based on observation.  I don't understand why this is even an issue. Just because I don't agree with the evolutionary teaching should not imply that I don't value science.  

The fact that you believe this life is all there is a very sad and depressing thought.  This life is pretty messed up in case you haven't noticed.  I had a pastor that once said that this is the closest to hell we as Christians will ever be.  But then I realized that this is the closest thing to heaven many people who do not accept Jesus will ever experience.  
Yes there are many religions and many of them have a common moral thread.  However, Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."  I would think that the religions that say that any path is valid, following Christianity would be a wise choice then (kills two birds with one stone).  For most religions however, they all have the idea that we can earn our way to heaven or nirvana.  Christianity is the only religion that is not about what we do in our own strength but entirely about what God has done and our response to that.  It takes humility to accept that we are not smart enough or good enough to earn our own way though.  People generally would rather find a way to do things themselves instead of admit that they are powerless to do something.

Also, a thought that should cause some thought, is that Christianity is the ONLY religion that has an "anti-religion" formed against it in the form of Satanism.  For some reason this resonated with my husband and he really thought that was interesting and proof that Christianity is the most valid of them all.  In a way, it is Satan showing "his hand" so to speak.  He does that sometimes. 

It wasn't very relevant at all.  It was more of a tangential comment about something I find particularly interesting.  The interesting part to me is that it more closely reflects the beliefs of East Asian traditions (e.g. Buddhism) wherein desire is said to be the root of suffering.  This is logically self-evident -- every time you have a desire for *any*thing no matter how necessary (e.g. water to drink) or trivial (e.g. "I just heard this song and I love it, and now I want to hear it again) it implies that you are dissatisfied or not wholly satisfied by the present situation.  Rephrased differently, desire is wanting something you don't have.  If event A is happening but I prefer event B which isn't happening, that's a problem because event A is all I have.

So in other words fuck science, I'd rather just believe in this old book book lalala I can't hear you over my being saved.

The bolded text is a huge misunderstanding, atheists don't think they can do whatever they want just because there is no afterlife.  On the contrary, we think this is the only chance we have so why would we want to screw it up?  I certainly don't want to spend the one life I have rotting away in a cell.  If a book is all that's keeping you from tossing out your morals then please keep believing, I'd rather not have a mass shooting because you think there are no consequences.

Last, your metaphore is completely inaccurate, as no religion/mythology has more proof than another.  Of the thousands of beliefs through out human history why should we believe any of them, much less a specific one?  Observing the world around us has proven that we evolved, there is plenty of evidence if you want to actually read up on it instead of claiming there is none.

I have never claimed to know it all. I am fully aware that there are plenty of people with higher IQ's and a greater understanding of science, quantum mechanics, physics and so on.

But thankfully God has promised that he would use the foolish things to confound the "wise."  

The intelligence of man is not enough to pay the price needed to enter heaven.  I trust God more than man.  You can trust in "science" and man's intelligence and your own intelligence.  You certainly have that choice.  But all I am saying is that there will be consequences for that choice.

I have had many debates with people over these things.  It seems like there is a common thinking that if someone doesn't believe in heaven or hell then they won't be accountable for the choices they make.  They think that if they don't believe in it, then it doesn't exist.  But if heaven and hell exists then does our belief or disbelief change that fact?

Here is an example.  Let's say that there were people on a very tall and high plateau and all around the plateau was a giant cliff.  If anyone walked off the cliff they would certainly die.  Most people were wearing blindfolds but some of us chose to take off the blindfold and we saw the cliff so we started to warn those around us that that they really needed to take off their blindfolds and look and see it for themselves!  We begged them to take the cliff seriously but they were certain that there was no cliff there and that we were just imagining it.  In fact, they said that we were the crazy ones for even saying that there was one there at all.  So one by one the people would walk towards the edge and fall to their death.  Would just believing it is not there cause them not to walk over the edge?  

Fine.  Show me how the scientific theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed then?  Where is the fossil record of all the changes that supposedly have taken place for man to evolve?  How about just one example of a change from one kind to another?  I do not need hundreds or even thousands.  I am just asking for one example?  There is no fossil record showing these changes and there would have to be millions of them if evolution was true but there isn't even one.  

And I still don't understand how you can say that observable science does not confirm intelligent design.  Even the smallest of atoms is so complex that it had to be designed intelligently.  Intelligence comes from somewhere.  Take a computer for example.  The hardware itself is completely useless without software.  The software is what tells the computer what to do and even the slightest bug keeps the software from fully functioning.  The same thing can be applied to the smallest of atoms and to life. And if we look at the cellular structure in our bodies each cell is a small engineering marvel, so complex that we still cannot fully understand how it works.  If we, as intelligent as we supposedly are, cannot completely understand the cell that should obviously mean that someone more intelligent designed the human body.  It seems obvious.  Also, if a small "bug" is introduced into our DNA we get mutations.  Mutations always remove information, and never add to the information hence there is no "good" mutations (sometimes they can be beneficial depending on the circumstance) but nevertheless, if evolution was true we would see mutations as all being great and improvements but that is not that case.  Order does not come from chaos.

YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE!

How can a person who is as ignorant as you are on a subject, claim to understand it enough to form an opinion.

What are your thoughts about the born interpretation of quantum mechanics? Do you think k-space is a suitable model for quantum energy states in Silicon semiconductors, considering the asymmetrical band formations?

Or really simple, since you claim formation of planetary bodies is made up nonsense...

Prove that kepler's laws are a consequence of conservation of angular momentum or how to resolve the asymptotic nature of the inverse square law using the dirac delta.

You surely are able to equally discuss all topics you are uninformed about.

You see, you are so ignorant, you don't even know how ignorant you are. You, quite literally, have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Observable science does not confirm anything re: intelligent design. Confirm means proves. Your concluding so does not make it an objective fact. Also, you seem to fall into the same problem most Christians do. Theory doesn't mean "idea" or "hypothesis" like in common parlance and how you're taking it to mean. A scientific theory is tested and confirmed, meaning everything we can objectively know about the issue proves true and there is no objective or scientific evidence to give any indication otherwise.

I have no problem with real science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

Not quite sure of the relevance of that post.

'Sin' being temptation is still something that is a 'crime against god'.

Giving in to 'temptation' is a pretty fucking wide remit, ranging from the temptation to give a loved one a kiss on the cheek to, well, some pretty horrific things. So 'temptation' isn't really the problem here, it is what one is driven to do by it that is the 'crime against god' and, as I said, if it isn't a harmful act, then all we're worrying about is offending the poor dear's delicate sensibilities. You know how 'He' hates to think of people doing 'icky' things!

Funny, though, how God always seems to support what prejudices and hatred people carry within them. I never hear of a Fungelical Christian saying, "You know what, I disagree with God, he says I should love gay people equally, but I hate them and I think what they do is wrong", no, the Fungelical God always hates Teh Gayz and the 'icky' things they do with as much passion as the Fungelical human being does.

How queer.

Just a note that "sin" in the Lord's Prayer (i.e. the Our Father) is equated to temptation -- "...And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (i.e. temptation)."