OK guys you really made your points very well.
Thank you.
Still, I tend to agree with this blog author that either there is not much proofs for Darwin's theory as well.
It seems that Darwin's theory is the most logic but still the are some ''holes'' and unproven facts in this theory, isn't it?
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 526. (Read 845713 times)
If he had scientific proof then why did the author not write a scientific paper? He could have subjected his theory to the same peer review that has led to other scientific breakthroughs. Instead he published it in his blog. Why? Because you must be scientifically illiterate to not see the problems with these counter-theories. Not that life is well understood. There are still some huge questions like, "where did life come from"?
Today all modern biology is based on the theory of evolution. That includes modern medicine, our understanding of DNA, etc. It has been over 150 years since Darwin's theory. In that time there has not been any finding that contradicts it. You will find that the answers to your examples are known and understood to not contradict evolution.
Today all modern biology is based on the theory of evolution. That includes modern medicine, our understanding of DNA, etc. It has been over 150 years since Darwin's theory. In that time there has not been any finding that contradicts it. You will find that the answers to your examples are known and understood to not contradict evolution.
You can't find scientific proof for god, because the hypothesis, god exists, is not falsifiable, neither is the hypothesis, god doesn't exist.
Philosophical proofs with word games are not scientific proof.
Falsifiability is a core tenet of the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Science is quite literally the wrong tool, but since science is the only tool we have for determining facts in the physical world, we are out of luck. Deductive logic can only determine truths that are self congruent, like mathematical truths. Science uses inference not deduction. You can not deduce god from first principals, neither is there sufficient, if any, evidence to infer god.
Philosophical proofs with word games are not scientific proof.
Falsifiability is a core tenet of the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Science is quite literally the wrong tool, but since science is the only tool we have for determining facts in the physical world, we are out of luck. Deductive logic can only determine truths that are self congruent, like mathematical truths. Science uses inference not deduction. You can not deduce god from first principals, neither is there sufficient, if any, evidence to infer god.
God is actually a name for aliens, we have missinterpreted it all these years
You can see every religion says the gods came from the stars, even the bible
And my hypotesis is that they came, they saw a smart species [apes] and they implemented a missing gene in them to make them evolve, to make us
You can see every religion says the gods came from the stars, even the bible
And my hypotesis is that they came, they saw a smart species [apes] and they implemented a missing gene in them to make them evolve, to make us
I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence.
Who need proofs about unicorn or flying spaghetti monster?
So true.
That's why its called a religion. That's why there are many religions. That's why there was mythology.
It's just a matter of believing, not proof-concept of existence.
I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence.
Who need proofs about unicorn or flying spaghetti monster?
hmmm... spaghetti, with nice sauce... heavenly!
I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence.
Who need proofs about unicorn or flying spaghetti monster?
I really doubt there is any scientific proof to describe god existence.
If god exist, he need put some text under this line 
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Mitochondrial DNA evolution seems more complex than the OP article assumes:
http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp
The beauty of nature and the universe is enough for me to not crave a "god", I mean think how wonderful it is that we are brim full of symbiants (mitochondria) that are tiny life forms in their own right. Really we ought to pray to them, without them we would have no cellular energy created. Those little critters manufacture our axiomatic "fuel" ATP, EVERYTHING in us runs on it.
Or if you want something bigger to pray to then we have SOL, our life enabling star.
Maybe you want bigger, then our galaxy centre might have something special in it for you.
http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp
Quote
And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers. The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:
Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).
Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!
Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).
Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!
The beauty of nature and the universe is enough for me to not crave a "god", I mean think how wonderful it is that we are brim full of symbiants (mitochondria) that are tiny life forms in their own right. Really we ought to pray to them, without them we would have no cellular energy created. Those little critters manufacture our axiomatic "fuel" ATP, EVERYTHING in us runs on it.
Or if you want something bigger to pray to then we have SOL, our life enabling star.
Maybe you want bigger, then our galaxy centre might have something special in it for you.
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam lived thousands of years apart, they were not a couple.
This is completely wrong, there are several "forces" operating as natural selectors, not only "survival of the fittest", in many species sexual selection by the females dictates the future of the specie.
In Evolution there's no "higher and higher species."
This is pretty big claim and proof of this will give Nobel prizes, a place in History and a ton of money.
Quote
The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with
"Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.
"Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.
This is completely wrong, there are several "forces" operating as natural selectors, not only "survival of the fittest", in many species sexual selection by the females dictates the future of the specie.
In Evolution there's no "higher and higher species."
Quote
But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
This is pretty big claim and proof of this will give Nobel prizes, a place in History and a ton of money.
The usual garbage full of fallacies and misinformation...
and this fallacies and misinformation are.....?
I will be interesting to hear which facts in this articles are false and why.
Otherwise, I will have to confess that this articles really made impact on me.
The usual garbage full of fallacies and misinformation...
This is another one, very good example, from the same site:
#35 Natural Selection
The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with “Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.
What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
Full story you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html
#35 Natural Selection
The concept of “Natural Selection”, sometimes used synonymous with “Survival of the Fittest”, is often touted as the magic process that when added to mutation will result in advancing steps of higher and higher species and the success of evolution.[1] But I encourage you to read up on what Natural Selection is all about and see that it will NOT lead to evolution. Check out the examples that are given, and see for yourself what a fanciful argument this is for evolution of molecules to man. Actually you can't even start with molecules because Natural Selection ONLY works on a species once it can reproduce.
What they actually mean by "natural selection" is what we believers in God totally accept and we call it adaption to the environment. It’s a wonderful God-given quality in Nature that creatures have that allows them to better survive. But it is never a process that will give you a new species.
Full story you can read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2013/05/35-natural-selection.html
What do you think?
Please share your opinion about this article.
101 Proofs For God
A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.
Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam
Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.
In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.
The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html
Please share your opinion about this article.
101 Proofs For God
A growing list of common sense Proofs for God.
Proof for God, #65 Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam
Genetic scientists seem to be in general agreement that we are all descendants of one woman and one man. This research was fairly recent, starting about 1978. They, of course, do not believe in the creation story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, but their conclusions are getting closer and closer.
In case you have not heard about this, it makes very interesting reading. But I think it raises a number of profound challenges to the Theory of Evolution.
The scientists base the above conclusions on the known facts of human reproduction, specifically on properties of the sperm and egg. .....
Full article read here: http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/65-mitochondial-eve-and-y-chromosome.html
Jump to: