Evidence for God?

[MarkDuffy]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.

Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.

Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.

That would be 100 abiogenesis hypotheses

and

Why must only one be true?

I would assume all 100 were going on at the same time.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

That's a lie on every level, completely made up by you. "Biogenesis" was never "discovered" to be "always true", and nobody with any real understanding of that term would ever think it could or would be.

Secondly, abiogenesis is the predominant hypothesis in biology for the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, to say it has abandoned is not just a lie, but a rather huge lie.

Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis.

Secondly, there is no single accepted abiogenesis model for origin of life. There have been over 100 abiogenesis theories. Ironically, one of them includes a hypothesis very similar to the Biblical account of God spitting into the dust. (Moisture in clay deposits reacting to lightning.) Still, to this date, there is no consensus theory and nothing has ever been proven. Biogenesis theory is still alive and well.

Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation.

Another bold assertion from the Bible according to Boss?

 

[MarkDuffy]

"Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science backgrund ought to know better than try and make that allegation. Biogenesis is the theory that all life comes from life. For all intents and purposes, "abiogenesis" is an attempt to disprove Biogenesis. "

You contradict yourself. You first try to say that nothing is proven to always be true, then you misrepresent abiogeneis as an attempt to disprove biogenesis, which would only be the case if you meant biogenesis were always true. Abiogenesis as the origin of life would not disprove the principle of biogenesis, which could still hold in all evolution of life deriving from the first common ancestor. Oops. Sometimes the truth slips out on accident...

Not a contradiction at all. Theories remain valid theories until they are disproved. Abiogenesis WOULD disprove the theory of Biogenesis. For heaven's sake, the fucking name should be a clue!

Sorry Boss

Point goes to Fort Fun Indiana by TKO. You did contradict yourself (again).

I would suggest you remove always, ever, nothing and such absolute words from your science vocabulary if you wanna play with the big boys and girls.

 

[MarkDuffy]

scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...

Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."

Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.

Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.

Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.

There you go again with your bold assertions quoting from the Bible according to Boss.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I keep dropping this coin and it keeps falling.

The Bible according to Boss clearly states this has not been validated by scientists, so eventually, it WILL go into orbit.

 

[Boss]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.

You really crack me up that you reject the work of Pasteur and renounce the theory of Biogenesis without ANY scientific basis to do so. I think Atheist Scientists need to be categorized as a religious cult because that is exactly how you behave.

 

[MarkDuffy]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.

You really crack me up that you reject the work of Pasteur and renounce the theory of Biogenesis without ANY scientific basis to do so. I think Atheist Scientists need to be categorized as a religious cult because that is exactly how you behave.

LOL, I don't reject the work of Pasteur! I just don't project nonsense into it.

Shouldn't you be arguing that Pasteur's experiment disproves your God hypothesis?

In Christianity

As the dominant view of philosophers and thinkers continued to be in favour of spontaneous generation, some Christian theologians accepted the view. Augustine of Hippo discussed spontaneous generation in The City of God and The Literal Meaning of Genesis, citing Biblical passages such as "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (Genesis 1:20) as decrees that would enable ongoing creation.[20]

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Genesis 1:20 ~ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”

Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the history of science has ever been "discovered to be always true" and anyone with a science background ought to know better than try and make that allegation.

Another bold assertion from the Bible according to Boss?

No, it's actually a statement of fact and it's an insult to science and the scientific method to try and contradict it. Science never establishes that ANYTHING is always true. That would be a conclusion and science doesn't draw conclusions. PEOPLE draw conclusion based on faith in science. Science observes, evaluates, measures, tests and falsifies... then postulates predictions based on probability. Once you have drawn a conclusion, Science checks out, punches the clock and is down at the pub having a beer... it's work is done and you are now practicing a FAITH in your conclusion. Science cannot do a thing with a conclusion.

 

[Boss]

scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed...

Scientists have NUMEROUS excellent ideas... they're called "hypothesis."

Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.

Let's be clear here... What you have is FAITH. You believe science will one day discover how life originated through natural processes. The problem I have with your faith is that you attempt to impose it on others by proclaiming it empirical truth and rejecting anything that contradicts it. I don't have much patience for fundamentalist believers.

Problem is, they've never validated any of their ideas through tests and observation.

There you go again with your bold assertions quoting from the Bible according to Boss.

No... again... another statement of FACT.

 

[Boss]

I keep dropping this coin and it keeps falling.

The Bible according to Boss clearly states this has not been validated by scientists, so eventually, it WILL go into orbit.

I guess you never heard of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics? Gravity is certainly not something that has been "discovered to always be true." While it is a fundamental force we can accurately measure, there is still a lot we don't know about gravity. This would include, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and other phenomenon such as black holes and the observer effect.

My Bible is Science. You are a religious fundamentalist who believes science supports your worldview.

 

[Boss]

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

Not only that but it's actually a direct contradiction of Biogenesis. One of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th century. The theories of spontaneous life were dead before 1900. Yet, their theories rest on this premise.

What is really alarming is, some of these people have science degrees and are working in science fields!

LOL, you really crack me up. Pasteur did not run his experiment for millions of years & ran it in a high oxygen atmosphere.

You really crack me up that you reject the work of Pasteur and renounce the theory of Biogenesis without ANY scientific basis to do so. I think Atheist Scientists need to be categorized as a religious cult because that is exactly how you behave.

LOL, I don't reject the work of Pasteur! I just don't project nonsense into it.

Shouldn't you be arguing that Pasteur's experiment disproves your God hypothesis?

In Christianity

As the dominant view of philosophers and thinkers continued to be in favour of spontaneous generation, some Christian theologians accepted the view. Augustine of Hippo discussed spontaneous generation in The City of God and The Literal Meaning of Genesis, citing Biblical passages such as "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (Genesis 1:20) as decrees that would enable ongoing creation.[20]

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Genesis 1:20 ~ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”

Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

No, you absolutely rejected it in no uncertain terms. You didn't actually offer any science to support your rejection but we're seeing that is a pattern here with you.

And now, you want to quote Bible passages to me as if I am here defending Christianity. That's because your fundamentalist religion is anti-Christian and that's what you are armed to do battle against.

I am not here to defend the Bible as you interpret it or Christianity, for that matter. However, if life originated through some abiogenesis process, that doesn't negate creation by God. Just because you can figure out how God did something, doesn't mean God didn't do it. I know that's a tough pill to swallow for a fundie like you but it's true.

 

[Divine Wind]

God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.

Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.

What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?

 

[MarkDuffy]

I keep dropping this coin and it keeps falling.

The Bible according to Boss clearly states this has not been validated by scientists, so eventually, it WILL go into orbit.

I guess you never heard of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Physics? Gravity is certainly not something that has been "discovered to always be true." While it is a fundamental force we can accurately measure, there is still a lot we don't know about gravity. This would include, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and other phenomenon such as black holes and the observer effect.

My Bible is Science. You are a religious fundamentalist who believes science supports your worldview.

LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?

Trust me on this. The coin will go down.

 

[theHawk]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

"Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."

Two things incorrect about this statement:

1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet

2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.

Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons. Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.

Carbon is not organic

Oh really? Did anyone here make this claim? No!

Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.

Perhaps you can point out where any of us claimed the primitive environment that gave rise to the abiogenesis of life was inorganic? CO2 organic? CH4 organic? HCN organic?

Yes, someone here made that claim.

Considering the definition of organic is living matter, yes one has to assume that the creation of the first life had to come from a universe devoid of life. Unless you are here to tell us that "abiogenesis" is a theory where life is created out of already existing organic life, which would only make the theory even more absurd.

Are you really this dumb? And libs claim they are all about science.

 

[Boss]

LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?

Trust me on this. The coin will go down.

Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?

What if you're in a black hole?

What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?

What if you are in the vacuum of space?

What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?

You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.

 

[The Irish Ram]

DNA is a code. The very first live, single celled organism had a complex code installed in it. So, who created that code? Ask Bill Gates if complex digital codes can be created by chance.

 

[The Irish Ram]

God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.

Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.

What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?

You have God confused with Satan, Duff. Satan created cancer. There was no such thing in Eden. Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan. He didn't give it back to God.
But Satan's reign is coming to an end....

 

[MarkDuffy]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

The evidence is the lack of scientific method for the creation of life. Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment. Atheist libs that have been running our education system like to fill the heads of young kids with fantasies of mixing several elements together at just the right place and time and suddenly spawn life. It's a complete fabrication, man has not even been able to artificially create life in a controlled environment, much less demonstrate that it can be done in the natural world. The complexity of even the most simple form of life makes it mathematically impossible for elements to just fall together and form such life.

"Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment."

Two things incorrect about this statement:

1) your misuse of the word, "inorganic". An inorganic environment, which would correctly mean an environment with no carbon, never existed on this planet

2) scientists have an excellent idea of how life formed: complex carbon molecules formed and persisted. Organized structures of these molecules were selected "for" by their environment, as were molecules that could replicate.

Carbon is not organic, it's an element, an atom with four valence electrons. Carbon-based life forms use carbon, the element by itself is not organic.

Carbon is not organic

Oh really? Did anyone here make this claim? No!

Scientists have absolutely no idea how to create life from an inorganic environment.

Perhaps you can point out where any of us claimed the primitive environment that gave rise to the abiogenesis of life was inorganic? CO2 organic? CH4 organic? HCN organic?

Yes, someone here made that claim.

Considering the definition of organic is living matter, yes one has to assume that the creation of the first life had to come from a universe devoid of life. Unless you are here to tell us that "abiogenesis" is a theory where life is created out of already existing organic life, which would only make the theory even more absurd.

Are you really this dumb? And libs claim they are all about science.

Ah, so you religionists are trying to coop another science term. Why am I not surprized?

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. Biochemistry is the organic chemistry of molecules associated with life.

First it was environmentalists who stole our word (to mean no pesticides), now it is the religionists.

We really outta sue

 

[MarkDuffy]

LOL, in which portion of general relativity or quantum physics will my dropped coin go up?

Trust me on this. The coin will go down.

Depends. What is "UP" and what is "DOWN"?

What if you're in a black hole?

What if your coin is made of helium or hydrogen molecules?

What if you are in the vacuum of space?

What if the sun explodes and destroys the Earth before the coin lands?

You don't need to reassure me, I wholeheartedly agree that it's highly probable the coin will land on the ground. But it is never a "certainty" in science. IF you believe something is a certainty in science, you're not practicing science, you are practicing faith in science. I don't know any more eloquent way to state that. You can BELIEVE whatever you please.

I am sitting in front of my computer here on Gaia. The coin is a coin.

Guess what? The coin just went down again.

Is this proof of God?

 

[MarkDuffy]

God created cancer. That is all the proof you need of a loving God.

Typical atheist who can only see what is in front of their nose.

What does it matter in our short lives what happens as long as our eternal soul is embraced?

You have God confused with Satan, Duff. Satan created cancer. There was no such thing in Eden. Adam relinquished his dominance over this earth to Satan. He didn't give it back to God.
But Satan's reign is coming to an end....

Satan created cancer? God didn't stop him?

Wow, Satan is greater than your God

You people crack me up