Scientific proof of God/superior being!!??

evolution is its own religion i think. our planet and all its changes it underwent describe a symmetry between our enviornment and a ''divine'' being. no questions asked. they always meet each other in growth.

Why don't atoms ever run out of energy ? They obviously use energy when they're spinning. Has anyone ever found a dead atom ? Or do they just dissapear. Maybe there's a 'physicist' that can explain where the energy goes and where it comes from in the first place

--
I am a physicist, doing an a-level in physics and soongoing todo aMasters at one of the top unis in the world in Physics.

As for God's existance, type Hume's Theory of Religion into Google or visit philosophyofreligion.info
Manypeople usethe design argument for an argument for God, but read about Hume's Dialogues concerning the Teological Argument, and you'll see it ismore plausible that the universe was created by a vegetable, in a way, than God.

KE is not used up in motion. Itis lost through friction, etc.
So if you have a KE of 600J in space, you will keep that speed constant, until something stops you(either another force or acollision)
which is why, if you travel to Mars,for example, you spend 6 months accelerating and 6 months decellerating, because there are no other forces to decelerate you! Same idea for satellites in space, give them a certain KE and they willkeep spinningaround the earth. Same forthe earth withregards to the Sun..
pretty obvious question if youhave agood concept of energy.

-- yes I may misunderstand theories, I'm notpretending I'm perfect in termsofknowledge, lol, all myanswers are throughmy interpretationof atheory

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
evolution is its own religion i think.

Considering there are no articles of faith, no gods, no statements about the afterlife, and in fact nothing at all that involves faith, how do you figure?

no questions asked. they always meet each other in growth.

I suppose if one doesn't ask any questions one might think that. What makes you say its true? Could you elaborate a little more?

ganesh2005
Why don't atoms ever run out of energy ? They obviously use energy when they're spinning

I think you'd have to consult a particle physics textbook, probably some primary research papers, to find that answer.

i will tell you for afact now
at this level, there is no friction, so these electrons are effectively in space.
If I give you 30J of KE in space, you would never stop. At the subatomic level, these things exist in a vacuum (yes we are just breathing in a vacuum with a very small amount of mass in it)..
So, they dont lose their KE.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
evolution is its own religion i think.

Considering there are no articles of faith, no gods, no statements about the afterlife, and in fact nothing at all that involves faith, how do you figure?

Evolution is a religion because it does require faith since there is no proof or basis for fact. It's a convenient way to explain diversity that will at several points contradict itself. Transpeciation says everything evolved from one cell, then later states bio-diversity is abolutely necessary for an ecosystem to function! Complete crap. Sorry, eight years of studying biology tells me this 'hypothesis of Evolution' is the 'kid that's doing it's own thing' in the picture of science. Darwin reads a book about geological degredation and then turns around to write one on how it applies to biology. Where's my pen and paper, I need to write a best seller textbook! Gregory Mendel knew science, read his stuff. He knew the mechanisms of genetics.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by saint4God]

As for the original topic.....there will never be scientific evidence of God, just because you cant hook it up to a machine doesnt mean its not there! You all fail to remember our minds are using what 5 - 10%, this is a fact. What do you think the rest is used for?

As for God, yes there is a higher "entity", during deep prayer at the lowest point of my life (death of child), He answered me in sequence with my request. I am female, a male answered.......put that on your machines or in your formulations!

....The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking" - Einstein

I follow that with scripture: Romans 12:2

Originally posted by saint4God
Evolution is a religion because it does require faith since there is no proof or basis for fact.

Evolution is the change in populations of animals over generational time. Its observed. Fossils indicate that entire faunas have changed over time and repeatedly adapted in similar ways to similar environments.
The genes between organisms show a pattern of inheritance, as often does morphology. I don't understand, are you unaware of the evidence, or do you disagree with whats been presented as evidence? If so, why?

It's a convenient way to explain diversity that will at several points contradict itself.

Such as?

Transpeciation says everything evolved from one cell, then later states bio-diversity is abolutely necessary for an ecosystem to function! Complete crap.

Uh, no. Evolutionary biology does not state that an entire ecosystem must exist ad hoc in order for any of its members to function. I don't know why you think this. There are certainly organisms that don't require an ecosystem to function, such as the many of the various autotrophic organisms

Sorry, eight years of studying biology p

In what? High school? Or university level? If you are citing your education in evolution to establish that you know what you are talking about, then you need to explain just what that education is. If you've been studying it for eight years, but think that it says organisms need an entire ecosystem to exist, well, you haven't been studying evolutionary biology very well.

Darwin reads a book about geological degredation and then turns around to write one on how it applies to biology. Where's my pen and paper, I need to write a best seller textbook!

Darwin's book was successful and a best seller because it made a powerful case for the existence of evolution and its occurance via a mechanism of natural selection. Write whatever you want, but it'd have to make some sort of case in order to be comparable to TOS. Which is sort of besides the point, since a bit has hapened in the 100 and some odd years since Darwin published TOS

Gregory Mendel [...]knew the mechanisms of genetics.

No he didn't. He didn't know the mechanisms of genetics at all. He recorded statistical observations of what happened. He didn't know about genes and dna or anythign involved in the actual mechanism, and nothing Mendel wrote about or studied contradicts evolutionary theory.

gizmoqt
there will never be scientific evidence of God

Indeed, how could there be?

You all fail to remember our minds are using what 5 - 10%, this is a fact.

Its an urban myth. Its never been shown to be true.

what do you think the rest is used for?

What would it matter, even if it were true?

put that on your machines or in your formulations!

How do you know the sex of any voice? That doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone try to 'put that into a machine'? Religion is a matter of faith, it doesn't require scientific evidence, indeed, its not even compatible with the idea of scientific evidence

Originally posted by Nygdan
Evolution is the change in populations of animals over generational time. Its observed. Fossils indicate that entire faunas have changed over time and repeatedly adapted in similar ways to similar environments.
The genes between organisms show a pattern of inheritance, as often does morphology. I don't understand, are you unaware of the evidence, or do you disagree with whats been presented as evidence? If so, why?

There is evidence of adaptation. We all have a range of variables as a result of the four bases of DNA. As far as evolution, nay I say. The oldest fossil of man looks like, well, man.

It's a convenient way to explain diversity that will at several points contradict itself.

Such as?

The basic problem with the timeline. There's no consistency to say during this time, species A lived here, then a slight change here made it species B, species C, etc.

Also Darwin plays heavy on survival of the fittest as Evolutionary Law. If this were so, we wouldn't be soft skinned intellectuals because you can't out-think a cheetah racing at you in the middle of the plains. If Darwin was correct, then humans should be huge, thick chitin-shelled creatures with an over-whelming ability to reproduce.

Transpeciation says everything evolved from one cell, then later states bio-diversity is abolutely necessary for an ecosystem to function! Complete crap.

Uh, no. Evolutionary biology does not state that an entire ecosystem must exist ad hoc in order for any of its members to function. I don't know why you think this. There are certainly organisms that don't require an ecosystem to function, such as the many of the various autotrophic organisms

I think this because of Stephen J. Gould's (king of modern evolution) Diversity of Life.

Sorry, eight years of studying biology p

In what? High school? Or university level? If you are citing your education in evolution to establish that you know what you are talking about, then you need to explain just what that education is. If you've been studying it for eight years, but think that it says organisms need an entire ecosystem to exist, well, you haven't been studying evolutionary biology very well.

Irrelevant. I'm not here to prove I know more than someone else. Sorry I brought it up. Refer to Gould's book as well as the constant theories on the Web of Life, Food Web, etc.

Darwin reads a book about geological degredation and then turns around to write one on how it applies to biology. Where's my pen and paper, I need to write a best seller textbook!

Darwin's book was successful and a best seller because it made a powerful case for the existence of evolution and its occurance via a mechanism of natural selection. Write whatever you want, but it'd have to make some sort of case in order to be comparable to TOS. Which is sort of besides the point, since a bit has hapened in the 100 and some odd years since Darwin published TOS

Seems we both have our opinions then. That's why we're discussing.

Gregory Mendel [...]knew the mechanisms of genetics.

No he didn't. He didn't know the mechanisms of genetics at all. He recorded statistical observations of what happened. He didn't know about genes and dna or anythign involved in the actual mechanism, and nothing Mendel wrote about or studied contradicts evolutionary theory.

Mendel had it right by recording facts and making a model work. Darwin's creativity, though admirable, has no place in science if he doesn't have the data to support.


[edit on 18-10-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 18-10-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 18-10-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 18-10-2004 by saint4God]

Lets say we are trying to sell these theories as products, which would you buy?
NEW! Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection! From the same people(scientists) who brought you antibiotics, electricity, computers, spaceships, etc. This grand new theory, through scientific observation of living and fossilized biological evidence, satisfactoraly answers most questions concerning the development of life on earth.

Creationism(Intelligent design)! Brought to you by the same people who gave us the Inquisition, the theory of a terra-centric universe, the crusades, exorcism, witch trials, and more! Dont worry yourself with such trivial things as "evidence" or "scientific research", because Creationism demands neither of these! In fact, this theory was developed by people who had absolutely no understanding of biology at all! You should believe in Creationism because "they" tell you to,and if you dont, they will threaten to send you to a terrible place when you die!

Its your choice.

Originally posted by saint4God
There is evidence of adaptation.

Adaptation is evolution, macro, micro, whatever you prefer to call it. If species can adapt to their environment then, well, they're doing exactly what evoltionists claim they can do.

The oldest fossil of man looks like, well, man.

Australpithecus looks like man? What fossil are you thinking of? Why wouldn't the oldest fossil of 'man' look like man? If it didn't, it wouldn't be a fossil of man. Its the precursors that are the question. Where would you put erectus, if nothing else? It looks extremely similar to modern man, yet its cranial capacity is entirely different. You can't include that sort of variation as 'not evidence of evolution'.

The basic problem with the timeline. There's no consistency to say during this time, species A lived here, then a slight change here made it species B, species C, etc.

You're going to have to be more specific than that to refute an entire branch of science thats stood the tests of over 100 years of scrutiny

Also Darwin plays heavy on survival of the fittest as Evolutionary Law.

Ok, lets look at that. Darwin noticed that organisms exist as populations. He noticed that populations are made up of individuals that are variable amoung each other, and that this variation is inheritable. He also noticed that these organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive. He also noticed that the ones that survive are the ones that have these variations that give them an advantage. Thus they reproduce more offspring, and the population as a whole comes to resemble them. Thus organisms adapt to their environment and conditions of existence. Where in that process is 'evolution' prevented?

If this were so, we wouldn't be soft skinned intellectuals because you can't out-think a cheetah racing at you in the middle of the plains.

Absurd. Fitest doesn't mean strongest.

If Darwin was correct, then humans should be huge, thick chitin-shelled creatures with an over-whelming ability to reproduce.

Ok, i was wrong before. That wasn't absurb, this is absurd. I thought you had studied evolution? It makes no claim like this at all. A smarter creature with a complex social system doesn't need to out run chetahs.

I think this because of Stephen J. Gould's (king of modern evolution) Diversity of Life.

Well then you've entirely misunderstood it becuase thats not what it means.

Irrelevant. I'm not here to prove I know more than someone else. Sorry I brought it up.

Ok, fine with me, but I only asked because you brought it up, and you don't seem to know very much of anything about evolution or biology from the statements you are making.

Refer to Gould's book as well as the constant theories on the Web of Life, Food Web, etc.

None of those ideas say anything about organisms requiring to be in a complex network of ecological interactions in order for organisms to exist. The organisms in particular do of course require this, predators need prey, for example, and parasites need hosts, figs need wasps, etc. But thats the specific organisms involved, thats saying that the current ecosystem is complex and interacting and inter dependant, not that in order for life to exist this ecosystem is required. If anything, the existence of inter-adapted interdependant ecosystems of animals is evidence for evolution anyway, so this is a rather silly line to take to critique evolution.

Seems we both have our opinions then.

It is not my opinion that Darwin's work jumpstarted the entire field of evolutionary biology. Its also not my opinion that that work and that field has been extraordinarily succesful as a science.

Mendel had it right by recording facts and making a model work. Darwin's creativity, though admirable, has no place in science if he doesn't have the data to support.

Again, it does have the data to support it, and mendels ideas work perfectly well with general darwinian theory. Darwin's ideas are just as well supported as mendel's. Again, if you know the specific evidence invloved, then why haven't you addressed why it is insufficient?

I personally just see my body as something that gets me around. I don't dwell too much on it. When I die ... I die. Simple as that. I don't dwell on the afterlife too much ... too busy trying to live the life I have NOW.

I appreciate all the points of challenging Nygdan, but this is exactly why I left the field. It becomes a war of words instead of facts. I never understood why science, something so based on evidence, becomes a credential slapping test of verbal finesse. My closing remark is I love how evolution says, "you have species A, then a miracles happens, now you have species B". Somebody please explain that middle part! If that's not faith, then I don't know what is. I stand by my previous statements.

quote: gizmoqt
there will never be scientific evidence of God

quote: Nygdan
Indeed, how could there be?

I would say case closed on this topic!


quote: Gizmoqt
You all fail to remember our minds are using what 5 - 10%, this is a fact.

quote: Nygdan
Its an urban myth. Its never been shown to be true.

This would hardly describe the modern age of science, as we know it.


quote: Gizmoqt what do you think the rest is used for?

quote: Nygdan
What would it matter, even if it were true?

Now that was a scientific and brillant response!

quote: Gizmoqt
put that on your machines or in your formulations!

quote: Nygdan
How do you know the sex of any voice? That doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone try to 'put that into a machine'? Religion is a matter of faith, it doesn't require scientific evidence, indeed, its not even compatible with the idea of scientific evidence

EXACTLY, "IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE" by machines and formulations!
Looks like you and Einstein disagree about Science and Religion (see below)


Can a "God" change His/Her identity? Can He change his voice? Can He change his substance? Can He change anything, anywhere......of course he can, He is GOD. Is there anyway you can "make sense" the science behind any of this? By the way I would pretty much belive God / Jesus / or any All Mighty entity could find a way to relate to me, no matter who I am, what religion, what race, what nationality, right???

"I do not belive in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbound admiration for the structure of the world SO FAR AS OUR SCIENCE CAN REVEAL IT." - Albert Einstein

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the SOURCE OF ALL TRUE ART AND SCIENCE" - Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is BLIND" (see above)

I also see you had no answers for Scripture or Albert Einstein's quotes for this topic, that would make you somewhat close minded in your scientific world. Not to mention extremely arrogant.

Originally posted by saint4God
I appreciate all the points of challenging Nygdan, but this is exactly why I left the field. It becomes a war of words instead of facts. I never understood why science, something so based on evidence, becomes a credential slapping test of verbal finesse.

Uhm, you were the one that started off by saying you had studied it for eight years, and you are the one who is ignoring the facts and evidence of the subject. Now you are pretending to be leaving the discussion because of this?

My closing remark is I love how evolution says, "you have species A, then a miracles happens, now you have species B". Somebody please explain that middle part!
Its been explained. Your cute little straw man mock up of the science is irrelecant.

If that's not faith, then I don't know what is.

I guess along with science you don't know what faith is then.

I stand by my previous statements.

I guess one would have to stand by them, rather than support them.

gizmoqt
Now that was a scientific and brillant response!

As opposed to your dodging and evading a response? What do you suggest the 'rest' of the mid does then, and how is it related to god?

I also see you had no answers for Scripture or Albert Einstein's quotes for this topic, that would make you somewhat close minded in your scientific world. Not to mention extremely arrogant.

Uhm, what are you talking about? I haven't even for a moment suggested that science can disprove or prove god, in anyway. I haven't even suggested that there is a need to 'answer' anything in scripture. I don't see what you are talking about. Suffice it to say religion and science operate on entirely different levels and, while not contradictory, are immiscible.

Nygdan- Here is what I speak of, scientific research involving the mind God and religion.

Again I quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is BLIND"

Research may show that some people are predisposed to religious experience and others are deaf to the call. "If we understand how the brain works, we may find reasons why certain people are more prone to religion," says Newberg. The answer, if there is one, would require a long study, possibly scanning the brains of separated twins and seeing which developed spiritually over time. But even if scientists can explain spirituality in biochentical terms, it is unlikely to quell the debate over what those experiences mean or whether they signal the existence of a God. Ultimately, there may be one of two conclusions to draw,: the brain is set up to generate the concepts of religion, or the brain is set up by God because God wants us to have those experiences. Newberg says: "Neuroscience can't answer that."

www.dhushara.com...

so yeah, this is my first post.

Just a clarification...nit picky rather. Energy is never lost. It is just transformed. I'm sure you all were reading it that way, but just never used "transformed".

Energy lost through friction is mostly dissipated by the collision of molecules that produces heat. This is why a microwave makes things hot. It basically rotates the polar molecules which bang into one another creating heat. Sound and light can also be ways in which energy is dissipated, but heat is usually the fastest and most efficient in "most" cases.

Anyways, to contribute to the discussion, I think a higher power exists. I do not think it can be measured by any means in our dimensional vibration. When we find how to measure across vibrations into other dimensions then we will be able to piece together "God". Currently, in our present state of vibration we only see a fraction of "God". This is my opinion.

Also, I'd like to add that i have went to school, but i will try not to use my education as a way to pull rank. I'm simply here to watch and learn.

Speedmojo -

Quote: Speedmojo
"Just a clarification...nit picky rather. Energy is never lost. It is just transformed. I'm sure you all were reading it that way, but just never used "transformed".

Exactly! (just like my signature)

Quote: Speedmojo
"Anyways, to contribute to the discussion, I think a higher power exists. I do not think it can be measured by any means in our dimensional vibration. When we find how to measure across vibrations into other dimensions then we will be able to piece together "God". Currently, in our present state of vibration we only see a fraction of "God". This is my opinion."

I think you have simply put this topic back into perspective, especially for the non-scientific, thank you!

I have learned one very vital lesson in life which applies to everything on earth........BALANCE..... be a master of one, but be enlightened by all.

Originally posted by Gizmoqt
Newberg says: "Neuroscience can't answer that."

I think i'd have to agree with newberg on that. he is the researcher who has a machine that makes some people have ecstatic visions no? If nothing else, his research shows that some prophets, visionaries, saints, etc, must've been having these natural episodes (or rather, there is no need to involve any deity in order to have any of these episodes). As far as what einstein say, well, he never worked religion into his actual research. He could talk about that sort of stuff, and he doesn't seemed to have really beleived in anything like most people beleive, but either way he didn't make scientific conclusions based on faith.

speedmojo
When we find how to measure across vibrations into other dimensions then we will be able to piece together "God".

I assume by that you mean that whats normally thought of as god isn't infact a metaphysical/supernatural entity but rather an intelligent 'being' or something actual 'thing' that just happens to reside primarily in another dimension and that interacts with this one in naturalistic ways?

Gosh thats a heck of a lot to say for something that I should probably know anyway....

Originally posted by GizmoqtAgain I quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is BLIND"

Actually, they're kind of lame when mixed together. Science with religion introduced some biases (some very dangerous) and religion with science can turn really weird (Scientology would be one fine example that sprints to mind.)

They're two different types of belief systems. One is... well, scientific, and the other is mythic. You don't measure myths/legends/beliefs with rules and meters, and any attempt to do so turns it into a hash.

Likewise, you don't just hold out your hands and shout " BUH-LEEEVE IN THE POWER OF GRAVITY, LUKE!!!" You measure it; quantify it, and religion has nothing to do with it.

The last time that religion heavily influenced science, Bruno and others were burned at the stake for the heresy of saying that the Earth goes around the sun. Frankly, the two belief systems need to be kept separate.