Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 91. (Read 845587 times)

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

''Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.'' I don't need to, I'm not an expert in this field, if the tests were accurate you wouldn't need to try to convince people of it but they are not, that's the scientific consensus no matter how much you don't like it. You are not an expert either so how are you judging the experiments?

You found articles of some scientists saying it's true because they have done experiments and you believed them, why? You can also find a lot of other articles talking about how scientists have been studying these ''paranormal'' stuff for decades and they eventually concluded that it's not real, why would you not believe them instead?

I already pointed you to the evidence for PK; there are many tests that show significant results; so why would you ask me for more?
This thread is about science and these tests are interesting. You did not give a valid reason to reject these results (these results are contrary to your beliefs, so you reject them first and try to find reasons to support your beliefs, but the reasons you gave were fallacious and unscientific). I have every expectation that you will irrationally reject other important research on related subjects.
The effect can be measured; the results are mysterious but the tests are methodologically sound. If you are not willing to consider this brief paper, why would you take the effort to study and understand the scientific evidence that points to GOD?
Your claims about PK and NDE are made without any scientific evidence, you are simply unwilling to consider the possibility of new paradigms.
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

God is there, we'll see we are in this world and still breathe this time because god, that's some of the other proof

Evolution was proven like 4 years ago, no need for threads like these anymore.

Look man, if you want to believe in magic for some reason, go ahead, you don't have to convince me in a thread about proving god scientifically. If you are so so convinced, where the fuck are all these people moving stuff with their minds?

You did not point to any research. Your links cast doubt on the results by using fallacious reasoning such as appeal to authority. The experiments are well designed and this much is admitted. Nowhere in those links is it explained how bias can actually account for the measured outcomes and I did not see any citation of the PDF I linked, so these critics probably never read this paper to begin with, they use the wrong calculations which Radin, et al have pointed out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/2r4c4t/study_analyzes_13_psychic_letters_from_brazilian/

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24406

It's annoying to do research for you, don't you have google?

You don’t even know how to measure PK, but the experts looked at the data and gave 2 interpretations, one of them is better than the other, so stop distracting from the evidence at hand:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

Then simply read what the scientific consensus is regarding telekinesis and near death experiences. ''substantiated through experiment'' You say that but it doesn't mean it's true. Have you ever seen someone using telekinesis?

Then simply read the papers I linked. Your appeal to authority has no bearing on facts substantiated through experiment. The paper I linked showed how the claims of Radin, et al were examined by skeptical scientists and presents a rebuttal to that evaluation. That means there is lively discussion about this topic from both sides.

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.

Not true, I interpret them according to how the authors interpret their own results AND according to how they reply to criticism. You do not interpret these tests at all, you only read the tangential commentary of skeptics who, like you, have never read these papers and never did any experiments on this particular subject either. It's easy to say that I'm wrong but more difficult to specifically state why a particular experiment is wrong.
For example, in this paper that I linked you to, the skeptics are refuted in their interpretation of the evidence. Where is your reply?
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

I have done that, and I found that skeptics like you are typically using misdirection, such as making the fanciful claim that because the researcher "believes in God also", then his research is not credible.--similar to the skeptical claim that is examined in the above-linked paper. It is you who is not reading any scientific literature, as a matter of FACT. The researchers I pointed to have replied to skeptics, yet you are going to use the skeptics' outdated, ill-informed, and tangential commentaries to form the basis of your opinion without any further inquiry? That is a very shallow analysis and you are in no position to tell me that I did not do my homework; you did not read the primary material and now you continue to make excuses.

I pointed out some solid research which is repeatable, skeptics took no action. This thread is about experimental research, so why must you tell me to stop posting science articles? What is needed is for you to come clean about who has actually taken the time to reply specifically to these tests. I have no need to read material which fails to address the specific evidence at hand.

If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science. I already pointed out that skeptics of Orch-OR have been robustly refuted by Hameroff and Penrose, yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.

I already made all of these claims earlier, yet you persist in your intellectual laziness by appealing to authority.