Post Any Evidence For God Here

[universalchiro]

I understand your premise, but I reject your conclusion.
Your arguing from a position of conjecture and you admittedly don't know the stages of the first life how exactly what was the first life, but you believe the gradual progression from non-living material tofirst life was so incrementally progressive that the transition from complex chemicals to life was seemless with no moment of spontaneous life, just ever progression of tinkering.

I find it peculiar that evolutionist don't know how things began and what was actually first, but they know for certain that there is no God and they know for certain Christians are wrong. I understand what you believe.

[betiko]

I understand your premise, but I reject your conclusion.
Your arguing from a position of conjecture and you admittedly don't know the stages of the first life how exactly what was the first life, but you believe the gradual progression from non-living material tofirst life was so incrementally progressive that the transition from complex chemicals to life was seemless with no moment of spontaneous life, just ever progression of tinkering.

I find it peculiar that evolutionist don't know how things began and what was actually first, but they know for certain that there is no God and they know for certain Christians are wrong. I understand what you believe.

The thing is that evolutionists as you call them (rational people is the term I use) don t pretend to have an answer to everything, provided by a 2000 year old guide. This guide was written by men that searched for answers based on what was technologically and scientifically proven at the time.
Good. I think we evolved a bit during those 2000 years. No need to force yourself into thinking they were right about everything.

I don t know for certain that there is no god, what I know for certain is that if there is some form of architect it never operated the way primitive civilizations hypotheticized 2000 years ago, and it's terribly ludicrous to think those men had more common sense+knowledge back then.

Does it mean science provides all the answers? Of course not. Science researches, elaborates theories and then proves. It will never provide all the answers.

People such as yourself might find comfort within religions, that are basically closed circuits able to give reasons and explanations to everything. If you prefer to live in lala land, well good for you.

[AndyDufresne]

Science.

Spoiler

(I assume in homage to one of my favorite actors, Chaplin)

--Andy

[crispybits]

[Gillipig]

I understand your premise, but I reject your conclusion.
Your arguing from a position of conjecture and you admittedly don't know the stages of the first life how exactly what was the first life, but you believe the gradual progression from non-living material tofirst life was so incrementally progressive that the transition from complex chemicals to life was seemless with no moment of spontaneous life, just ever progression of tinkering.

I find it peculiar that evolutionist don't know how things began and what was actually first, but they know for certain that there is no God and they know for certain Christians are wrong. I understand what you believe.

The thing is that evolutionists as you call them (rational people is the term I use) don t pretend to have an answer to everything, provided by a 2000 year old guide. This guide was written by men that searched for answers based on what was technologically and scientifically proven at the time.
Good. I think we evolved a bit during those 2000 years. No need to force yourself into thinking they were right about everything.

I don t know for certain that there is no god, what I know for certain is that if there is some form of architect it never operated the way primitive civilizations hypotheticized 2000 years ago, and it's terribly ludicrous to think those men had more common sense+knowledge back then.

Does it mean science provides all the answers? Of course not. Science researches, elaborates theories and then proves. It will never provide all the answers.

People such as yourself might find comfort within religions, that are basically closed circuits able to give reasons and explanations to everything. If you prefer to live in lala land, well good for you.

The problem is that this guy in particular is not just satisfied with living in his own lala land, he wants to drag others into his lala land so he won't feel so lonely in it. He's the missionary type of person.

[warmonger1981]

Betiko if they were primitive why is it we cannot figure out how the pyramids were constructed? With all our technology we should be able to figure this out. I mean the ancients being dumb and all this should be easy. We have the model in front of us not distorted texts. Just saying the ancients are smarter than most think.

[universalchiro]

In correct, I'll share the gospel a couple of times and then shake the dust off of rejection and move to fertile ground. You won't hear the precious news of God from me. Just so we understand each others position. You believe in the spawning of first life by an unsure means and unsure exactly what was the first life, that it spontaneously began along with the information necessary also spontaneously began. I understand your belief system, I accept your premise, but I reject your conclusion. The funny part is to read evolutionist say they believe that through random unguided mutations amino acids form proto-RNA replicating molecule and into the first prokaryote, but can't see its faith based and poke fun at Christians that believe as well. Two belief systems, one admits and one pokes fun at the other for something they equally do.

[crispybits]

You keep mentioning this "the information necessary" thing UC - could you clarify what you mean by that because (no offense meant here) it sounds like gibberish to me. Information is everywhere and is proof for nothing except reality. The distance between the Sun and the next nearest star is information. The number of calcium atoms in the room you sit in right now is information. The specific vibrational frequency of the neutrino that just passed through Betiko as if he wasn't there is information. Yet you seem to want to imply that if the scientific view of abiogenesis is true that somehow the information for life (whatever that means) must have been created from nothing? Or do I misunderstand you?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

In correct, I'll share the gospel a couple of times and then shake the dust off of rejection and move to fertile ground. You won't hear the precious news of God from me. Just so we understand each others position. You believe in the spawning of first life by an unsure means and unsure exactly what was the first life, that it spontaneously began along with the information necessary also spontaneously began. I understand your belief system, I accept your premise, but I reject your conclusion. The funny part is to read evolutionist say they believe that through random unguided mutations amino acids form proto-RNA replicating molecule and into the first prokaryote, but can't see its faith based and poke fun at Christians that believe as well. Two belief systems, one admits and one pokes fun at the other for something they equally do.

Because random mutations are documented and known to happen. You have millions of mutations in you (SNPs, small micro satellites, etc.). There is nothing unsure about that.

Chemistry happens every day outside of your knowledge and without your understanding. Your rejection of the conclusion has no bearing on the outcome. The chemistry behind such evolution is solid.

-TG

[jonesthecurl]

Betiko if they were primitive why is it we cannot figure out how the pyramids were constructed? With all our technology we should be able to figure this out. I mean the ancients being dumb and all this should be easy. We have the model in front of us not distorted texts. Just saying the ancients are smarter than most think.

What do you think is mysterious about pyramid-building?

[patches70]

I mean the ancients being dumb and all this should be easy. We have the model in front of us not distorted texts. Just saying the ancients are smarter than most think.

The ancient peoples were not dumb. They have the exact same brains we have today. If they were dumb then we are too.


They were no smarter than us, nor we smarter than them. They knew things that we have forgotten or just recently relearning and we know things that never occurred to them or that they had figured out yet.

But they weren't dumb.

[betiko]

I mean the ancients being dumb and all this should be easy. We have the model in front of us not distorted texts. Just saying the ancients are smarter than most think.

The ancient peoples were not dumb. They have the exact same brains we have today. If they were dumb then we are too.


They were no smarter than us, nor we smarter than them. They knew things that we have forgotten or just recently relearning and we know things that never occurred to them or that they had figured out yet.

But they weren't dumb.

nobody said they are dumb; I said that they didn't have access to the same knowledge and the same technology; so we obviously have a better idea of what this whole thing is about.
Let's say that in 2000 years the humanity still exists (now that I'm telling it I have doubts it will continue this far..). Don't you think some scientific advancements would make them more "aware"?

[universalchiro]

In correct, I'll share the gospel a couple of times and then shake the dust off of rejection and move to fertile ground. You won't hear the precious news of God from me. Just so we understand each others position. You believe in the spawning of first life by an unsure means and unsure exactly what was the first life, that it spontaneously began along with the information necessary also spontaneously began. I understand your belief system, I accept your premise, but I reject your conclusion. The funny part is to read evolutionist say they believe that through random unguided mutations amino acids form proto-RNA replicating molecule and into the first prokaryote, but can't see its faith based and poke fun at Christians that believe as well. Two belief systems, one admits and one pokes fun at the other for something they equally do.

Because random mutations are documented and known to happen. You have millions of mutations in you (SNPs, small micro satellites, etc.). There is nothing unsure about that.

Chemistry happens every day outside of your knowledge and without your understanding. Your rejection of the conclusion has no bearing on the outcome. The chemistry behind such evolution is solid.

-TG

This is a classic evolutionary blunder, "I see adaptation today, therefore taken to the furthest extent, we evolved from a chemical broth". Classic error in deduction, classic leap of faith. And what every evolutionist is unwilling to accept is they have a leap of faith that life came from non-living material. Sure, sure, they'll veil this leap of faith with technical terms and some Latin, but when it comes right down to brass tax, they believe something that has been proven to not be possible: Spontaneous life from non-living material. A faith based system.

A. There are no spontaneous life spawned today, nor ever observed, yet ya'll hold fast to your belief.
B. There are no chemicals in complex soups spontaneously forming into RNA chains and DNA chains today from non-living material, nor not even spontaneously forming into the simpler protein form, nor ever observed, yet this is believed.

Faith based system, I'm fine with you believing this, just don't claim that it's science, for science is knowing and you don't know, you guess, you have a hypothesis.

To give you a laugh and lighten the mood: In one of the multiverses that some cosmologist purport, you all are arguing that God created us in 6 days and I'm calling you a fool living in lala land. LOL come on that's funny

I understand what you guys believe. I'm fine with it, but I know it's faith based and you can't come to grips with that reality.

[warmonger1981]

The mystery about building pyramids is how they did it, the time in which they supposedly did it, the tools they supposedly used. Two million stones coming from 500 miles away built in 20 years with brass chisels and stone. The main tunnel to the inner chamber 300 feet perfectly level. The inner chamber has different stones that fit perfectly inside the chamber. The pyramid built within five hundredth of a degree due north. Perfectly under the north star. There is a 100 mile band that stretches around the earth that hits most pyramids from SA to Africa. No wheels involved to build this structure.

[Gillipig]

The mystery about building pyramids is how they did it, the time in which they supposedly did it, the tools they supposedly used. Two million stones coming from 500 miles away built in 20 years with brass chisels and stone. The main tunnel to the inner chamber 300 feet perfectly level. The inner chamber has different stones that fit perfectly inside the chamber. The pyramid built within five hundredth of a degree due north. Perfectly under the north star. There is a 100 mile band that stretches around the earth that hits most pyramids from SA to Africa. No wheels involved to build this structure.

And so god did it?
You're even thicker than I thought. Which btw is quite the achievement as I considered you to be pretty damn thick. I bet you're a big fan of Alex Jones as well.

[crispybits]

UC scientists admit that we don't know all the steps between complex organic chemistry and modern life. There are assumptions made along the way and areas of study being pursued all over the world to come up with more precise answers.

But there's a qualitative difference between faith that the scientific explanation is probably true and an iron-clad certain faith in God.

We have observed the modern scientific method as it exists now for a few hundred years, since the enlightenment. (There were previous versions of it but the one we use today was really nailed down in that time.) It hasn't always provided solutions to every problem, but it has proved to be a reliable method for observing, quantifying and predicting how the universe around us works. Sometimes it makes mistakes, but then it self-corrects those mistakes when new information comes to light because of better measurement or a different scientific perspective from a genius such as Einstein. It's never afraid to admit it might be wrong, because in every case it's a result of the best minds in the world working together to try and provide the best explanation we can for what we see around us. In fact it celebrates when some new hypothesis shakes it's core foundations up and the scientists that do that are the ones that are remembered by history as the greatest minds.

We have observed the religious method for thousands of years and it has hardly changed. It has rarely, if ever, provided a religious solution to any tangible problem and has consistently shown itself to be unreliable unless you squint really hard at the holy book of choice and re-interpret it to fit facts in hindsight that science has discovered. No naturalistic explanation for anything in reality has ever been proven to be wrong by a theistic hypothesis when tested. It rarely admits to being mistaken unless you count the reinterpretationist apologetics, which isnt really admitting the religion is wrong but is retrofitting the dogma with new facts provided by science and claiming that that's what it said all along (Einstein said Newton was wrong about gravity, he didn't say Newton was right but we misinterpretted what he meant). It is the result of whatever culture spawned the dogma, with little or no further work to discover new religious "facts" and update core doctrines based on what is observed in reality.

So yeah, I'm gonna put my trust in something that has given us all of the things we almost take for granted now, like cars, computers, hot running water from the taps in my house, my really comfortable memory foam mattress, GPS and satnav, the ability to pick up a little piece of plastic and speak instantly to people on the other side of the world, drugs that would hopefully cure my cancer should I ever be unfortunate enough to have it, etc etc. Until the religious method produces even one tiny scrap of the kind of real, tangible effect and doesn't have to fall back on "but it gives me warm and fuzzies and promises me I can live forever" as the very best it can do then I will not trust it one jot.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

In correct, I'll share the gospel a couple of times and then shake the dust off of rejection and move to fertile ground. You won't hear the precious news of God from me. Just so we understand each others position. You believe in the spawning of first life by an unsure means and unsure exactly what was the first life, that it spontaneously began along with the information necessary also spontaneously began. I understand your belief system, I accept your premise, but I reject your conclusion. The funny part is to read evolutionist say they believe that through random unguided mutations amino acids form proto-RNA replicating molecule and into the first prokaryote, but can't see its faith based and poke fun at Christians that believe as well. Two belief systems, one admits and one pokes fun at the other for something they equally do.

Because random mutations are documented and known to happen. You have millions of mutations in you (SNPs, small micro satellites, etc.). There is nothing unsure about that.

Chemistry happens every day outside of your knowledge and without your understanding. Your rejection of the conclusion has no bearing on the outcome. The chemistry behind such evolution is solid.

-TG

This is a classic evolutionary blunder, "I see adaptation today, therefore taken to the furthest extent, we evolved from a chemical broth". Classic error in deduction, classic leap of faith. And what every evolutionist is unwilling to accept is they have a leap of faith that life came from non-living material. Sure, sure, they'll veil this leap of faith with technical terms and some Latin, but when it comes right down to brass tax, they believe something that has been proven to not be possible: Spontaneous life from non-living material. A faith based system.

A. There are no spontaneous life spawned today, nor ever observed, yet ya'll hold fast to your belief.
B. There are no chemicals in complex soups spontaneously forming into RNA chains and DNA chains today from non-living material, nor not even spontaneously forming into the simpler protein form, nor ever observed, yet this is believed.

Faith based system, I'm fine with you believing this, just don't claim that it's science, for science is knowing and you don't know, you guess, you have a hypothesis.

To give you a laugh and lighten the mood: In one of the multiverses that some cosmologist purport, you all are arguing that God created us in 6 days and I'm calling you a fool living in lala land. LOL come on that's funny

I understand what you guys believe. I'm fine with it, but I know it's faith based and you can't come to grips with that reality.

The forces at work today are the same as yesterday. This is a central component of sciences like geology, physics, chemistry, etc. The rules of the universe don't change. This is not an error in deduction.

A. I don't believe you can prove this statement, and it has no bearing on the validity of my argument. What if there has been some virus that mutated into something more lifelike? The chances of it surviving and being discovered are pretty much astronomically against it.

Besides, the environments between the origin of life and now are very different.

B. If you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, then you should perhaps take another look at it. More than 20 amino acids have formed from nothing but H20, H2, CH4, and NH3. And in only 60 years of experiment. Now extrapolate that to a larger reservoir (Earth), and many millions of times longer.

And btw, science is not 'knowing.' Science is hypothesizing based on observations and subsequent testing of the hypothesis.

-TG

[betiko]

The mystery about building pyramids is how they did it, the time in which they supposedly did it, the tools they supposedly used. Two million stones coming from 500 miles away built in 20 years with brass chisels and stone. The main tunnel to the inner chamber 300 feet perfectly level. The inner chamber has different stones that fit perfectly inside the chamber. The pyramid built within five hundredth of a degree due north. Perfectly under the north star. There is a 100 mile band that stretches around the earth that hits most pyramids from SA to Africa. No wheels involved to build this structure.

And so god did it?
You're even thicker than I thought. Which btw is quite the achievement as I considered you to be pretty damn thick. I bet you're a big fan of Alex Jones as well.

i'm pretty sure tere is something called logs that don't require the invention of the wheel to move huge stones. While some techniques used are still unknown, we know for the most part how they did it. One problem has multiple solutions; and as they were not thick as we said, they could use the same type of intelectual ressources to confront construction problems that were different from the ones we use. It doesn't make them superior or more advanced.

[betiko]

In correct, I'll share the gospel a couple of times and then shake the dust off of rejection and move to fertile ground. You won't hear the precious news of God from me. Just so we understand each others position. You believe in the spawning of first life by an unsure means and unsure exactly what was the first life, that it spontaneously began along with the information necessary also spontaneously began. I understand your belief system, I accept your premise, but I reject your conclusion. The funny part is to read evolutionist say they believe that through random unguided mutations amino acids form proto-RNA replicating molecule and into the first prokaryote, but can't see its faith based and poke fun at Christians that believe as well. Two belief systems, one admits and one pokes fun at the other for something they equally do.

Because random mutations are documented and known to happen. You have millions of mutations in you (SNPs, small micro satellites, etc.). There is nothing unsure about that.

Chemistry happens every day outside of your knowledge and without your understanding. Your rejection of the conclusion has no bearing on the outcome. The chemistry behind such evolution is solid.

-TG

This is a classic evolutionary blunder, "I see adaptation today, therefore taken to the furthest extent, we evolved from a chemical broth". Classic error in deduction, classic leap of faith. And what every evolutionist is unwilling to accept is they have a leap of faith that life came from non-living material. Sure, sure, they'll veil this leap of faith with technical terms and some Latin, but when it comes right down to brass tax, they believe something that has been proven to not be possible: Spontaneous life from non-living material. A faith based system.

A. There are no spontaneous life spawned today, nor ever observed, yet ya'll hold fast to your belief.
B. There are no chemicals in complex soups spontaneously forming into RNA chains and DNA chains today from non-living material, nor not even spontaneously forming into the simpler protein form, nor ever observed, yet this is believed.

Faith based system, I'm fine with you believing this, just don't claim that it's science, for science is knowing and you don't know, you guess, you have a hypothesis.

To give you a laugh and lighten the mood: In one of the multiverses that some cosmologist purport, you all are arguing that God created us in 6 days and I'm calling you a fool living in lala land. LOL come on that's funny

I understand what you guys believe. I'm fine with it, but I know it's faith based and you can't come to grips with that reality.

so just explain something please: what is your premice? life has always existed? if god created life, then it spawned form his own life right? But how did god's life spawned? that if you consider god as a living entity, and if you don't then you believe life spawned from nothing. Either way, your argumentation is totally flawed as you are confronted to the same problem you're pointing.
Also, we are only based on most probable theories, and there is another commonly used theory that says that life might have come through some meteorite. Those are just theories and we are not advanced enough at this point to provide with rock solid answers.

You want "rock solid answers" so you like the confort of the faith argument, what do you want us to say? We won't make you change your mind, the more people question your faith the more you think it's being tested and you need to prove the invisible man on his cloud you will always stay on the same line of argumentation.
Faith is the number one weapon used to manipulate people. You can make weak people do or think what you want using faith. Weaker people feel stronger when they have a faith, maybe it's good, but they'd rather keep it to themselves and stop proselytism.

[warmonger1981]

Did I say ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NUMB NUTTS???? No you little troll. Nor did I say they were superior or more advanced. The fact is that we really have no idea how its done, only speculation. I may be thick but I will break you like a twig. You and Kuethor must be from the same gene pool of trolls and gremlins. Hear what you want. I bet your a big fan of ignorance and stupidity as that's what you seem to know the most about.

[AndyDufresne]

Did I say ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NUMB NUTTS???? No you little troll. Nor did I say they were superior or more advanced. The fact is that we really have no idea how its done, only speculation. I may be thick but I will break you like a twig. You and Kuethor must be from the same gene pool of trolls and gremlins. Hear what you want. I bet your a big fan of ignorance and stupidity as that's what you seem to know the most about.

This post can be summed up as essentially "OH YEAH??! Well you're a diaper!"


--Andy

[betiko]

Did I say ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NUMB NUTTS???? No you little troll. Nor did I say they were superior or more advanced. The fact is that we really have no idea how its done, only speculation. I may be thick but I will break you like a twig. You and Kuethor must be from the same gene pool of trolls and gremlins. Hear what you want. I bet your a big fan of ignorance and stupidity as that's what you seem to know the most about.

This post can be summed up as essentially "OH YEAH??! Well you're a diaper!"


--Andy

and you are a banana wanabee andy.

[AndyDufresne]

Did I say ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NUMB NUTTS???? No you little troll. Nor did I say they were superior or more advanced. The fact is that we really have no idea how its done, only speculation. I may be thick but I will break you like a twig. You and Kuethor must be from the same gene pool of trolls and gremlins. Hear what you want. I bet your a big fan of ignorance and stupidity as that's what you seem to know the most about.

This post can be summed up as essentially "OH YEAH??! Well you're a diaper!"


--Andy

and you are a banana wanabee andy.

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.


--Andy

[universalchiro]

UC scientists admit that we don't know all the steps between complex organic chemistry and modern life. There are assumptions made along the way and areas of study being pursued all over the world to come up with more precise answers.

But there's a qualitative difference between faith that the scientific explanation is probably true and an iron-clad certain faith in God.

We have observed the modern scientific method as it exists now for a few hundred years, since the enlightenment. (There were previous versions of it but the one we use today was really nailed down in that time.) It hasn't always provided solutions to every problem, but it has proved to be a reliable method for observing, quantifying and predicting how the universe around us works. Sometimes it makes mistakes, but then it self-corrects those mistakes when new information comes to light because of better measurement or a different scientific perspective from a genius such as Einstein. It's never afraid to admit it might be wrong, because in every case it's a result of the best minds in the world working together to try and provide the best explanation we can for what we see around us. In fact it celebrates when some new hypothesis shakes it's core foundations up and the scientists that do that are the ones that are remembered by history as the greatest minds.

We have observed the religious method for thousands of years and it has hardly changed. It has rarely, if ever, provided a religious solution to any tangible problem and has consistently shown itself to be unreliable unless you squint really hard at the holy book of choice and re-interpret it to fit facts in hindsight that science has discovered. No naturalistic explanation for anything in reality has ever been proven to be wrong by a theistic hypothesis when tested. It rarely admits to being mistaken unless you count the reinterpretationist apologetics, which isnt really admitting the religion is wrong but is retrofitting the dogma with new facts provided by science and claiming that that's what it said all along (Einstein said Newton was wrong about gravity, he didn't say Newton was right but we misinterpretted what he meant). It is the result of whatever culture spawned the dogma, with little or no further work to discover new religious "facts" and update core doctrines based on what is observed in reality.

So yeah, I'm gonna put my trust in something that has given us all of the things we almost take for granted now, like cars, computers, hot running water from the taps in my house, my really comfortable memory foam mattress, GPS and satnav, the ability to pick up a little piece of plastic and speak instantly to people on the other side of the world, drugs that would hopefully cure my cancer should I ever be unfortunate enough to have it, etc etc. Until the religious method produces even one tiny scrap of the kind of real, tangible effect and doesn't have to fall back on "but it gives me warm and fuzzies and promises me I can live forever" as the very best it can do then I will not trust it one jot.

I respect that. I already knew your response, but what you didn't know is I'm in agreement with you. I don't trust the church , so we are in accord with that and I'm glad to read that you accept that your evolutionary view does have aspects of faith base, that's important to know in this chaotic world of people purporting that evolution is fact. Good work and stay thirsty my friend.

[universalchiro]

@Betiko, glad to read you used "most probable" theory instead of fact. I'm fine with your belief, just glad to read an evolutionist acknowledge that evolution is not fact and there is some faith to the theory or for the theory.

As for does the Bible violate the Law of Conservation of energy or Entropy with God creating from nothing? God is eternal, in math He is infinite, so infinite doesn't violate Entropy by being eternal. Now an infinite God took an essence of Himself to create everything that exists. Which means Life begot life. Which means the Bible is in harmony with physics' the Conservation of energy 1st law of Thermal dynamics.

Even the newly found information that the universe is flat was recorded in the Bible 3,000 yrs ago. With God stretched out the heavens and God made an expanse in the heavens. The Hebrew word for expanse/firmament is raqaya which derives from the root raqa which means to stretch out like a blacksmith stretches out sheets of metal, thin. So the Bible recorded 3,000 yrs ago that God stretched out and stretches out the heavens like thin sheets of metal. No one knew why the Bible wrote this until modern science caught up.