The Real Scientific proof of GOD

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Since we know that indeed we are made up of particles and energy, of which our life/power can control, is it such a stretch to think that there is a life/power able to control all the particles and energy in the universe and that this life/power is God whose image I am?

In the absence of objective evidence supporting that idea...yeah, a huge stretch.

well can you prove god dosent exist? darwinisum is a huge stretch. why are there huge gaps in fossil records. sorry kind of off topic

Can you prove unicorns don't exist? Do you believe in unicorns?

Look, the fact is, there's zero objective evidence that would prove a creator. As for the theory of evolution, it's classified as a scientific theory, the highest grade of certitude you can get. It's fully backed up by evidence, in over 150yrs no one has "debunked" it. Also, we're using findings of the theory in modern medicine...

there are extreamly large gaps in evolution. you have evidence from point A to Z but what about the so called millions of year in between. Between homo heidelbergensis and homo sapien there no slowly changing evidence to be found. for the mader there are no slow changes to be found in any of the so called evidence

reply to post by camaro68ss


Define 'A' and define 'Z'. There's never going to be a complete A to Z list of every species that currently exists and ever existed, but we don't need that. There's more than enough evidence to establish a strong pattern and to date there is no evidence that falsifies evolution. Anyway, this thread should be in Conspiracies in Religion and the current detour should be in Origins and Creationism, not Science and Technology.

Edit: oops, my bad, looks like it's been moved to the appropriate forum

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Define 'A' and define 'Z'. There's never going to be a complete A to Z list of every species that currently exists and ever existed, but we don't need that. There's more than enough evidence to establish a strong pattern and to date there is no evidence that falsifies evolution. Anyway, this thread should be in Conspiracies in Religion and the current detour should be in Origins and Creationism, not Science and Technology.

Edit: oops, my bad, looks like it's been moved to the appropriate forum

edit on 7-4-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

A to Z Between homo heidelbergensis and homo sapien for instence.Where are the should be hundreds of thousands of fossils that should show the ever so changing of homo heidelbergensis to homo sapien…? There is none. its A to Z. why are there not Millions of so called evolutional human bodys scattered through the world?

If evolution is to take millions of years we should be able to find the millons of bodys for those times? no? is that asking to much

Originally posted by MrXYZ


As for the theory of evolution, it's classified as a scientific theory, the highest grade of certitude you can get.

No, the highest grade of certitude is reserved for scientific LAW. You should know better. You should also be aware that good science is being done in both evolutionist and creationist camps. I'm sure we will never agree to who has debunked who, so I won't argue the point, except to note in the 150 years you mention, evolution is still a theory.

reply to post by camaro68ss


You might wanna read up before making wrong claims
LINK

Originally posted by john_bmth
There's more than enough evidence to establish a strong pattern and to date there is no evidence that falsifies evolution.

Actually, the entire theoretical structure of evolution breaks down when you consider a single class of evidence: polystrate tree trunks. In some places there are whole forests of them, all in their original positions relative to each other, and penetrating strata that are considered to cover millions of years. Oddly, the tops are no more weathered than the bottoms. If that is not good enough for you, I'll explain Polonium Haloes...

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

No, the highest grade of certitude is reserved for scientific LAW. You should know better.

Oh really?

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

You should also be aware that good science is being done in both evolutionist and creationist camps.

I challenge you to provide ANY good science done by the creationist camp that has been peer-reviewed by NON-creationists in proper academic journals.

I'm sure we will never agree to who has debunked who, so I won't argue the point, except to note in the 150 years you mention, evolution is still a theory.

You should get your own terminology right before picking other people up on it. A scientific theory is not "just a theory":

A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

You might wanna read up before making wrong claims

LINK

that doesn’t answer my question. you throw at me a link to wikapida about some ramblings of migrations. Where are the millions of dead body’s slowly changing to homo sapiens? There should be millions of them if this change is ever so slow

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by john_bmth
There's more than enough evidence to establish a strong pattern and to date there is no evidence that falsifies evolution.

Actually, the entire theoretical structure of evolution breaks down when you consider a single class of evidence: polystrate tree trunks. In some places there are whole forests of them, all in their original positions relative to each other, and penetrating strata that are considered to cover millions of years. Oddly, the tops are no more weathered than the bottoms. If that is not good enough for you, I'll explain Polonium Haloes...

Yes, please do, considering you are wrong:

In the 1986 book It's a Young World After All, Paul Ackerman described a whale fossil found in Lompoc, California. He described the whale as being oriented vertically and passing through several layers of strata—a “polystrate” fossil. Paleontologists date fossils by the strata they are found in. If the whale were found to cross layers, it would mean that strata could not be dated, and paleontologists would be wrong about the dates of all their fossils. But Ackerman's description was wrong, and a creationist who visited the site agrees.


Creationist Andrew Snelling visited the site and admitted that the whale lies entirely within one layer of strata that was oriented diagonally. Geologic forces had upended the strata. However, some anti-evolutionists continue to repeat this story, reinforcing the idea that strata are always horizontal.

Anti-evolutionists also claim that some fossil trees pass through different layers, when, in fact, the trees were buried by river floods bearing large amounts of coarse sediment that covered the trees while they stood upright. In other somewhat similar circumstances where the trees are in sediments that are more fine-grained, the tops of the trees are missing because the fine sediment took a long time to settle, allowing decay of the exposed upper portions

edit: and more: www.talkorigins.org...

I guess they all went scrambling to there story of evolution books to combat our answers. Crickets….

In order for evolutionary theory to be correct, transitional species—partway between one true species and another which it is supposed to have evolved into—should have been found in massive numbers. But none have been found. Scientists are well-aware of this problem, and have a name for it. They call it "fossil gaps."

Modern men and women are only supposed to have existed on earth for the past 2 million years, and therefore should only be found in Quaternary strata.

Yet human fossils have been found in many different levels, and human footprints have been found in the Cambrian level. These facts totally violate evolutionary theory.—p. 47.



www.pathlights.com...

john_bmth: Oh really?
Laz: I just disagree with what you quoted from wherever. A law has complete certitude, but only a theory is subject to revision. Maybe we do not use the same conceptual dialect.

john_bmth: I challenge you to provide ANY good science done by the creationist camp that has been peer-reviewed by NON-creationists in proper academic journals.
Laz: Yeah, like that's ever going to happen! You give the dominant a leg up from the get-go, but what ever happened to level playing fields? Don't you think it is a bit dishonest to demand evidence which you know is not going to be provided by your co-conspirators (NON-creationists in proper academic journals)?

john_bmth: You should get your own terminology right before picking other people up on it. A scientific theory is not "just a theory":
Laz: A theory is no just a theory? Where do you get this stuff? A theory is a theory, but I sense that when it comes to evolution, no, make that Evolution, a theory is a Law.

I am under no delusion that this will convince skeptics, but here it is:


www.ichthus.info...

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I guess they all went scrambling to there story of evolution books to combat our answers. Crickets….

In order for evolutionary theory to be correct, transitional species—partway between one true species and another which it is supposed to have evolved into—should have been found in massive numbers. But none have been found. Scientists are well-aware of this problem, and have a name for it. They call it "fossil gaps."

Modern men and women are only supposed to have existed on earth for the past 2 million years, and therefore should only be found in Quaternary strata.

Yet human fossils have been found in many different levels, and human footprints have been found in the Cambrian level. These facts totally violate evolutionary theory.—p. 47.




www.pathlights.com...

edit on 7-4-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Can you prove this by giving a scientific, peer edited source, or is that just more made up bollocks?

reply to post by camaro68ss


Wow that site is full of pseudo-science...pretty much every single thing you just wrote is just plain wrong...

Modern men and women are only supposed to have existed on earth for the past 2 million years, and therefore should only be found in Quaternary strata.

ORLY?

The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains that date to 195,000 years ago.

Source

This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

HILARIOUS!!!

As for your transitional species argument...complete and utter nonsense

List of transitional fossils

I hope you don't mind scrolling, it's a long list

I loooove that pseudo-science website, they are hilarious...but never cite a single source. They just claim the most random stuff that simply isn't true...which should be obvious to anyone who is willing to do even a bit of research.

Another gem:

SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.

So first they say the sun in shrinking...which according to Stanford University is complete nonsense at least if you apply that pseudo-website's figures.

In other words, the Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime is 99.966% of its current mass. See.. nothing to worry about!

Anyway, so how long will that take?

The Sun is thought to have a remaining lifetime of about 5x10^9 years.

And what's even funnier is that they now talk about the oceans starting to boil...for which the sun would have to increase in size....NOT shrink!! But who cares about facts if you can just as well create a random website, spew lies, and then claim you're an "Encyclopedia:, right? :lo:

Originally posted by TheDebunkMachine


...peer edited source...

That is to say, a mainstream, conspiritorial source. Peer-review is just another form of "breathing together" or conspiracy. This only reinforces corporate/government funded "science."

reply to post by kaleshchand


this is like giving an eskimo the ingredients for a taco and telling him/her that tacos exist and asking them to prove that tacos exist by making one...

God will never be proven...only KNOWN in each individuals own way. and if God does not exist to some then that is their way of knowing God...as nonexistent

How the heck did this thread transition from god is pure energy to macro evolution?



All attempts by creationists (and by default, IDers) falls flat when it comes to the arena of science. Chiefly because there is no science to allude to when it comes to all things faith-based. As I mentioned earlier, things that reside only in the hearts and minds of men are not tangible evidence.

There needs to be a more than an "I believe god equates to energy" to make it a scientific fact.

Scientific proof? Seriously? This reminds me of something a friend of mine brought to my attention a few years back, that Kurt Goedel had made a scientific proof of God. I don't follow Modal Logic as well as I should, but I thought it interesting nonetheless:





And the link to read up on Goedel: HERE.

That being said, I'll say that I believe the verdict is still out on the proof of god. I've read both sides of the fence, the strong atheists versus the adamant believers. I'm the sort that believes what appeals most to my intuition, and could live in either camp somewhat uncomfortably, because I honestly think we as a species have no clue as to what god is really about, just a lot of speculation and the twisted logic of a bunch of well meaning and/or sometimes power hungry individuals. I think most believe in god due to a fear factor, some because they are in awe of our multiverse, and others not because they believe they are better off without all the supernatural garbage clouding their thinking. To each their own.

Personally, I simply refer to him as "Dad" when we communicate, and I talk to him as I would a normal person, and he answers me with whispers of the wind or the sound of gentle rain. Sometimes he doesn't answer at all, but that's ok, because I see him all around me, in the beauty of nature. The creator/supreme being/god would naturally have many names, because he means something different to everyone. It's called free will.

So funny this is about God being the Universe yet since the second post people have been using the word "her/him" and personifing "God" as a flesh and bone male i n a seat of power. Lawl, just goes to show how much we actually CARE to interpret the Bible. S+F OP, at least you have a "not-so" way ward idea.

Originally posted by sirnex
I don't get it. Where is the proof that the universe is all knowing given that to know something the universe must be a living intelligent entity with the capacity to experience and reflect upon those experience in which to gain knowledge of all things.

Looks more like wordplay than proof.

edit on 7-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)

As I said I am not too good at explaining things, I will try again.

Lets take an example of something that is alive to make this easier. A snail, it has a shell that is essentially dead, but it is alive, so we call the entire snail alive. In this regard, the universe is alive because we are alive, if a part af it is alive then it must be considered alive as a whole. As long as something is alive within the universe, the universe is alive.

All knowing here means "comprising of all the knowledge that is there". Lets take another example here. say you were the only person and only thing alive in the universe, you would contain all the knowledge that was in the universe at that time.

In the same way the universe contains all knowledge that there is, because everything containing knowlege is cantained within the universe.

Another way of looking at this is, consider a human, whatever knowledge that person has, we say that that person knows that thing, but its actually the synapse of the brain where the knowledge is stored. And in the same way a universe knows everything because all living things are part of its brain. I hope that makes sense.