Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

"...there are no shoulds in science..."

Within the framework of things that cannot be seen or heard or felt... conjecture, speculation and imagination are the cornerstones of theoretical science... nothing can be theorized nor sought nor gauged nor assessed nor proven nor disproven without the ability to conjure it first in the imagination and then to speculate upon its nature in a collaborative manner until something firmer and more reliable comes to light.

There are plenty of 'shoulds' in science.

Science is just another tool of Man, to articulate his perceptions of the measurable.

It is not the end-all-be-all Descriptor for Existence...

Merely a johnny-come-lately and strong Contender for that Honor.:

Religion, Philosophy and Art are some of its strongest competitors and boast their own broad (and even older) hold upon the attention and affections of Humankind.

There is room enough for all - including hybrid explanations or beliefs.

 

[S.J.]

wrong! just pointing out the childish nature of your response.
if you took it personally, I must be correct.

You haven't been correct about anything yet.

how'd I know you'd say that!
in fact I've been right about everything..

I'm sure you think you have.

 

[Boss]

Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time....The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this....

Well, well, well !! The Creationist vampire is finally revealed behind the cloak of the disinterested philosophic observer !!

Moreover, the crudity of your scientific knowledge is make clear.

No one who has carefully examined the progression from dinosaurs to birds, or has seen the clear evolution from Australopithecines to Homo erectus, then to Homo Heidelbergensis, then to both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens, would make such foolish statements.
.

Well, I guess my problem is, I haven't observed this happen. I see you telling me we've examined this, carefully, but I am not seeing the proof it happened. I see we have found some really neat dinosaur bones, and some really interesting bird bones, but it's the "progression" part I don't see. There is no evidence to support cross-genus speciation. All evolution that we've ever examined, is within a genus. If we are to believe that every form of life emerged from a single cell, there had to be a time when cross-genus speciation was happening all the time, because we have billions of life forms now, and 95% of the various species are extinct. We see no sign whatsoever, in nature, of this happening now. We can't replicate this in a controlled lab environment, but in order for all life to emerge from a single cell, this had to happen and happen a lot. Now, I am not saying it didn't happen, but what do you suppose made it stop? Did Mother Nature get tired of creating new life forms?

Let me set you straight again, I am not a Creationist, I have not argued a case for Creationism. But I do believe there is a valid argument for Intelligent Design, in fact, I think it's mighty illogical to "conclude" this isn't at least a possibility. You see, what you seem to be failing to comprehend here, is that I am keeping an open mind, and you have closed your mind. Where you have convinced yourself that evolution explains origin, I have not. I can accept Darwin's theories, and see where there is evidence to support them, but I don't believe his theories explain cross-genus speciation, and I don't believe you have explained it.

I guess I don't have as much FAITH as you do, huh?

 

[edthecynic]

No you can get at the truth in all versions it's just that the kjv has many mistakes in it but there are some that will argue the other way.

I own 13 different versions and they all say the same thing just a little differently. It is the over all message that matters. You don't get to the truth by cherry picking scriptures to make them fit what you're trying to say.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

 

[S.J.]

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

I thought you were an atheist, Ed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

Really ? Kjv was not the first translation so really you are now reduced to being foolish.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

Really ? Kjv was not the first translation so really you are now reduced to being foolish.

And you are reduced to only the original bible in its original languages is credible. All other bible translations are worthless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are jumping from bible to bible to change evil, a bad thing to troubles and sorrows as if they are good things. Bad is not good, bad is evil.

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

Ed it's this simple God created everything that includes people that do evil. He did not create evil he created being's capable of doing evil. In other words commit sin. Did God create evil beings no he did not they chose to be evil the same as they did since the beginning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

Really ? Kjv was not the first translation so really you are now reduced to being foolish.

And you are reduced to only the original bible in its original languages is credible. All other bible translations are worthless.

The bible is now translated in every known language of man can you tell me why that is wrong ? No one has the original writings everything has been written down on manuscripts through the years.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

Ed it's this simple God created everything that includes people that do evil. He did not create evil he created being's capable of doing evil. In other words commit sin. Did God create evil beings no he did not they chose to be evil the same as they did since the beginning.

The bible says God created evil, you can change the word evil to paper cut, but the fact remains that evil exists by the hand of God.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus (341–270 B.C.)

 

[Boss]

The Argument from Design impressed many people for many centuries -- until Darwin came along. One of the reasons that religious fanatics hate Evolution so much is that it explodes the Argument from Design.

I disagree. Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time. It does not even apply to origin of life. It also does not even present a theory regarding cross-genus speciation. People have taken Darwin's theory to an illogical step, and formed a false assumption. The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this, and we can't reproduce it in a controlled lab environment, much less, expect it to have happened naturally. There is also the fact that some animals don't appear to have 'evolved' any at all, they remain virtually unchanged from the time they first appeared.

It amazes me at how often you see people arguing Evolution vs. Creation, as if these are competing ideas, when they certainly aren't. It is possible for both to be true, partially true, or false. Evolution does not defeat Creation and Creation does not defeat Evolution. They are two different arguments about different things, so we can't make the statement you just made, it's simply not accurate.

Regardless of how far back you go with the theories of how life originated, it can never defeat the concept of Creation. If a massive Big Bang caused the universe to form, and the theories of Abiogenesis are absolutely true, it still has not answered the questions of WHY? What caused the various elements to come into existence? What caused the various elements to behave in the way they do? What physical force created the universe when no physical universe was present? How did matter create matter? How did non-organic material create organic material? Why does electricity have the properties it has? (Note: I am not asking HOW it works, but WHY it works that way.)

It is interesting to me... Two molecules of Hydrogen and one molecule of Oxygen, form the essential building block of all living things we know. By the same token, remove just one molecule of Hydrogen, and you have something that destroys all life as we know.

Creationists have already chosen to reject evolution, for no rational reason other than it's not in the bible.
As for the Big Bang, you just supposed that a god made it happen because you don't know how it actually happened.

I am not certain who you are referring to when you say "creationists" because this can cover a wide range of different views, not all of which "reject evolution." I personally know people who believe the universe was created by intelligent design, but also believe Darwin's theory of evolution. I know people who believe the universe was created by intelligent design, but do not believe in the Bible. I am a Spiritualist, I don't subscribe to the Bible or any other organized religion, but I do believe there is strong evidence of a spiritual entity, and I certainly think it's possible this entity could have intelligently designed and created the universe. Unless I see something that proves otherwise beyond any reasonable doubt, I will continue to believe this is a possibility.

Now, I have to hand it to you Christian-bashers and God-haters, you don't ******* quit. You relentlessly try to turn any objective debate on this topic, into a theological quagmire, no matter how long it takes. And your response is indicative of what that is. Because when you can turn this into a theology debate, you can ridicule and mock Christians, and that's really what you're all about. You had literally rather abandon science and become closed-minded intolerants, just so you can bash on Christians. It is just too much to expect people like you to engage in a fair objective analysis of the evidence, as presented in the OP.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope, what i was doing was showing you the correct translation of that verse did you not read the link I posted ?

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

I thought you were an atheist, Ed.

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
- Unknown

 

[dblack]

No, I gave you the translation that was INSPIRED by God, you gave a translation that was inspired by televangelists.

I thought you were an atheist, Ed.

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
- Unknown

Somehow that reminds me of something my youngest son said, when he was seven or eight. We drove past a gaggle of Fred Phelps loons protesting on campus in Lawrence KS.... and my son read one of the signs out loud "God hates fags!!!". He thought for a moment then asked "But didn't God make fags?"

 

[edthecynic]

Darwin's theories attempt to explain how animals have changed over time....The fact that animals can change and adapt in order to survive, does not mean they can become a different animal. We see absolutely no evidence of this....

Well, well, well !! The Creationist vampire is finally revealed behind the cloak of the disinterested philosophic observer !!

Moreover, the crudity of your scientific knowledge is make clear.

No one who has carefully examined the progression from dinosaurs to birds, or has seen the clear evolution from Australopithecines to Homo erectus, then to Homo Heidelbergensis, then to both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens, would make such foolish statements.
.

Well, I guess my problem is, I haven't observed this happen. I see you telling me we've examined this, carefully, but I am not seeing the proof it happened. I see we have found some really neat dinosaur bones, and some really interesting bird bones, but it's the "progression" part I don't see. There is no evidence to support cross-genus speciation. All evolution that we've ever examined, is within a genus. If we are to believe that every form of life emerged from a single cell, there had to be a time when cross-genus speciation was happening all the time, because we have billions of life forms now, and 95% of the various species are extinct. We see no sign whatsoever, in nature, of this happening now. We can't replicate this in a controlled lab environment, but in order for all life to emerge from a single cell, this had to happen and happen a lot. Now, I am not saying it didn't happen, but what do you suppose made it stop? Did Mother Nature get tired of creating new life forms?

Let me set you straight again, I am not a Creationist, I have not argued a case for Creationism. But I do believe there is a valid argument for Intelligent Design, in fact, I think it's mighty illogical to "conclude" this isn't at least a possibility. You see, what you seem to be failing to comprehend here, is that I am keeping an open mind, and you have closed your mind. Where you have convinced yourself that evolution explains origin, I have not. I can accept Darwin's theories, and see where there is evidence to support them, but I don't believe his theories explain cross-genus speciation, and I don't believe you have explained it.

I guess I don't have as much FAITH as you do, huh?

As you well know the changes take place very slowly over many generations. And as you already admitted 95% of the various species are extinct, but there are a few of the in between species still around. Like plants that eat meat and animals that perform photosynthesis. And then there is the Platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile and has a snout and webbed feet of a duck. If that is not enough of a crossover species for you, nothing will ever do.

 

[S.J.]

Well, well, well !! The Creationist vampire is finally revealed behind the cloak of the disinterested philosophic observer !!

Moreover, the crudity of your scientific knowledge is make clear.

No one who has carefully examined the progression from dinosaurs to birds, or has seen the clear evolution from Australopithecines to Homo erectus, then to Homo Heidelbergensis, then to both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens, would make such foolish statements.
.

Well, I guess my problem is, I haven't observed this happen. I see you telling me we've examined this, carefully, but I am not seeing the proof it happened. I see we have found some really neat dinosaur bones, and some really interesting bird bones, but it's the "progression" part I don't see. There is no evidence to support cross-genus speciation. All evolution that we've ever examined, is within a genus. If we are to believe that every form of life emerged from a single cell, there had to be a time when cross-genus speciation was happening all the time, because we have billions of life forms now, and 95% of the various species are extinct. We see no sign whatsoever, in nature, of this happening now. We can't replicate this in a controlled lab environment, but in order for all life to emerge from a single cell, this had to happen and happen a lot. Now, I am not saying it didn't happen, but what do you suppose made it stop? Did Mother Nature get tired of creating new life forms?

Let me set you straight again, I am not a Creationist, I have not argued a case for Creationism. But I do believe there is a valid argument for Intelligent Design, in fact, I think it's mighty illogical to "conclude" this isn't at least a possibility. You see, what you seem to be failing to comprehend here, is that I am keeping an open mind, and you have closed your mind. Where you have convinced yourself that evolution explains origin, I have not. I can accept Darwin's theories, and see where there is evidence to support them, but I don't believe his theories explain cross-genus speciation, and I don't believe you have explained it.

I guess I don't have as much FAITH as you do, huh?

As you well know the changes take place very slowly over many generations. And as you already admitted 95% of the various species are extinct, but there are a few of the in between species still around. Like plants that eat meat and animals that perform photosynthesis. And then there is the Platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile and has a snout and webbed feet of a duck. If that is not enough of a crossover species for you, nothing will ever do.

How the hell is that proof of cross-genus speciation?

 

[edthecynic]

I thought you were an atheist, Ed.

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
- Unknown

Somehow that reminds me of something my youngest son said, when he was seven or eight. We drove past a gaggle of Fred Phelps loons protesting on campus in Lawrence KS.... and my son read one of the signs out loud "God hates fags!!!". He thought for a moment then asked "But didn't God make fags?"

Exactly, for a group that can't have babies, they can only come from God.

 

[S.J.]

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
- Unknown

Somehow that reminds me of something my youngest son said, when he was seven or eight. We drove past a gaggle of Fred Phelps loons protesting on campus in Lawrence KS.... and my son read one of the signs out loud "God hates fags!!!". He thought for a moment then asked "But didn't God make fags?"

Exactly, for a group that can't have babies, they can only come from God.

For a minute there I thought you might have finally graduated high school but I can see from this comment that you're still a juvenile. My mistake.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, I guess my problem is, I haven't observed this happen. I see you telling me we've examined this, carefully, but I am not seeing the proof it happened. I see we have found some really neat dinosaur bones, and some really interesting bird bones, but it's the "progression" part I don't see. There is no evidence to support cross-genus speciation. All evolution that we've ever examined, is within a genus. If we are to believe that every form of life emerged from a single cell, there had to be a time when cross-genus speciation was happening all the time, because we have billions of life forms now, and 95% of the various species are extinct. We see no sign whatsoever, in nature, of this happening now. We can't replicate this in a controlled lab environment, but in order for all life to emerge from a single cell, this had to happen and happen a lot. Now, I am not saying it didn't happen, but what do you suppose made it stop? Did Mother Nature get tired of creating new life forms?

Let me set you straight again, I am not a Creationist, I have not argued a case for Creationism. But I do believe there is a valid argument for Intelligent Design, in fact, I think it's mighty illogical to "conclude" this isn't at least a possibility. You see, what you seem to be failing to comprehend here, is that I am keeping an open mind, and you have closed your mind. Where you have convinced yourself that evolution explains origin, I have not. I can accept Darwin's theories, and see where there is evidence to support them, but I don't believe his theories explain cross-genus speciation, and I don't believe you have explained it.

I guess I don't have as much FAITH as you do, huh?

As you well know the changes take place very slowly over many generations. And as you already admitted 95% of the various species are extinct, but there are a few of the in between species still around. Like plants that eat meat and animals that perform photosynthesis. And then there is the Platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile and has a snout and webbed feet of a duck. If that is not enough of a crossover species for you, nothing will ever do.

How the hell is that proof of cross-genus speciation?

Those examples cross more than just genus and species, they cross KINGDOMS.
Get it?

 

[edthecynic]

Somehow that reminds me of something my youngest son said, when he was seven or eight. We drove past a gaggle of Fred Phelps loons protesting on campus in Lawrence KS.... and my son read one of the signs out loud "God hates fags!!!". He thought for a moment then asked "But didn't God make fags?"

Exactly, for a group that can't have babies, they can only come from God.

For a minute there I thought you might have finally graduated high school but I can see from this comment that you're still a juvenile. My mistake.

Some assholes have no sense of humor!

 

[S.J.]

As you well know the changes take place very slowly over many generations. And as you already admitted 95% of the various species are extinct, but there are a few of the in between species still around. Like plants that eat meat and animals that perform photosynthesis. And then there is the Platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile and has a snout and webbed feet of a duck. If that is not enough of a crossover species for you, nothing will ever do.

How the hell is that proof of cross-genus speciation?

Those examples cross more than just genus and species, they cross KINGDOMS.
Get it?

My last comment applies to this as well.