Evidence for God?

[K9Buck]

I believe in evolution, but I don't believe that life spontaneously materialized in a primordial soup and then "evolved" into every living thing that's ever existed. There is certainly a lack of archaeological evidence to support that claim.

Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.

Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.

 

[K9Buck]

These types of threads attract all sorts of atheists that not only do NOT believe that a creator made us or the universe, they don't WANT there to be such a being. Hence, they have zero objectivity on the topic. They're like attorneys shilling for a certain outcome as opposed to having an open mind and looking for the truth.

We scientists tend to not believe in magic.

What we do care about is why believers have so little faith they must deny science to keep their belief.

God loves science. If you have to claim God invented science, then that works for me also.

No, you do believe in magic. After all, you believe the universe created itself.

And you believe that God created itself.

God has always existed, which is something that is difficult for us to comprehend since everything in our universe, even the universe itself, has a beginning.

 

[K9Buck]

The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.

Guys like you always spew this gibberish but never offer your own theories on how the universe and life came into existence. Guys like you actually REJECT the science that very strongly suggests a creator.

 

[anotherlife]

It is not true, that God can be seen only by the eye of the believer.

 

[Political Junky]

The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.

Guys like you always spew this gibberish but never offer your own theories on how the universe and life came into existence. Guys like you actually REJECT the science that very strongly suggests a creator.

Science does explain it, but you refuse to accept it.

 

[K9Buck]

The Bible was written thousands of years before modern science.
It was meant to explain our origins to illiterate people. Unfortunately many still buy the ancient wisdom.

Guys like you always spew this gibberish but never offer your own theories on how the universe and life came into existence. Guys like you actually REJECT the science that very strongly suggests a creator.

Science does explain it, but you refuse to accept it.

Let's hear it.

 

[Boss]

Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.

You're right, it is chemistry. But that begs the question, why can't you reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled lab environment.... especially, since you conclude it must've been easy?

You're wrong about the problem not being the finding of the route... that's precisely the problem, you haven't found the route. You have about 127 competing theories of abiogenesis, none have ever been proven. What's the problem? It's supposed to have happened easily in the inconsistent muck of the primordial soup... you have state of the art labs where every aspect of the environment can be controlled at your fingertips.

When we study life in all it's splendor, we find a fascinating collection of symbiotic and interdependent relationships... this can't live without that... and that can't live without something else. Many things are entirely dependent upon things like the moon, tidal currents, ocean convection, seasons. Would they exist without them? They couldn't exist without them! We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life.

So I think the existence of life is much more complicated that simply having a rock in suitable proximity to a sun.

 

[K9Buck]

Well, first of all, archaeology does not address abiogenesis, that is in the realm of chemistry. And the problem is not in finding a route for life to have started, but which, of many possible routes, did life take to get started. And, since life started very early in the history of our planet, it looks as if it is not an unusual event.

You're right, it is chemistry. But that begs the question, why can't you reproduce the phenomenon in a controlled lab environment.... especially, since you conclude it must've been easy?

You're wrong about the problem not being the finding of the route... that's precisely the problem, you haven't found the route. You have about 127 competing theories of abiogenesis, none have ever been proven. What's the problem? It's supposed to have happened easily in the inconsistent muck of the primordial soup... you have state of the art labs where every aspect of the environment can be controlled at your fingertips.

When we study life in all it's splendor, we find a fascinating collection of symbiotic and interdependent relationships... this can't live without that... and that can't live without something else. Many things are entirely dependent upon things like the moon, tidal currents, ocean convection, seasons. Would they exist without them? They couldn't exist without them! We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life.

So I think the existence of life is much more complicated that simply having a rock in suitable proximity to a sun.

None of that matters to the close-minded, narrow-thinking atheists that tell us that the universe and life created themselves. LOL!

 

[mamooth]

Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.

So?

At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"

In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.

 

[Boss]

So?

At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"

In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.

You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know! Read this goddamn thread! Over and over, we have morons speaking in absolute terms about scientific theories as if they are proven science. We repeatedly put up with you shitstains denouncing God and proclaiming there is no such thing in the most snarky and condescending ways you can think up while ridiculing anyone who professes belief in God. It's the one thing you DON'T do, to admit you don't know!

But thank you for admitting that you don't know and you're really being totally dishonest about that!

 

[K9Buck]

Atheists offer NOTHING when it comes to how life and the universe came into existence. NOTHING. That's because you've got NOTHING.

So?

At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"

In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.

Well, that's just it. Atheists don't say "I don't know" but instead mock us the "sky fairy" crap. Then, they pretend that their belief that the universe created itself is rationale, logical thinking. For the record, I believe we have a creator, but I don't know that as a fact. That's the difference between the atheist and me.

 

[RWS]

So?

At least we're honest enough to say "I don't know"

In contrast, you're not honest. You pretend you know the answer. Moral high ground to the atheists, as usual.

You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know! Read this goddamn thread! Over and over, we have morons speaking in absolute terms about scientific theories as if they are proven science. We repeatedly put up with you shitstains denouncing God and proclaiming there is no such thing in the most snarky and condescending ways you can think up while ridiculing anyone who professes belief in God. It's the one thing you DON'T do, to admit you don't know!

But thank you for admitting that you don't know and you're really being totally dishonest about that!

Are you having a temper tantrum?

You seem to speak in absolute terms as well. Actually more absolute terms than any of us, but you like to leave them "fuzzy".. But of course, you're the Boss, and your statements are 100% right. Right?

 

[RWS]

Here's one of your fuzzies, that you will argue that you meant something else afterwards:

BOSS SAYS: "We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. "

Oxygen is 33% of the ocean. It's called H2O.

It doesn't require motion of the ocean. It IS the ocean.

Ok, so I know you're going to say, that you meant something different, like you always do. But you keep saying stuff like this, and then backtracking when you're called out on it. And insisting you're the smartest person on the planet.

 

[mamooth]

You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know!

But I just did, and I am an atheist, hence you're clearly lying.

So, moral low ground to you. As usual.

Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.

You also might want to try to act rational. Your rage and hatred seems to be getting the better of you.

 

[K9Buck]

You fuckwits NEVER say you don't know!

But I just did, and I am an atheist, hence you're clearly lying.

So, moral low ground to you. As usual.

Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.

You also might want to try to act rational. Your rage and hatred seems to be getting the better of you.

Agnostics don't know if there is a creator but leave open the possibility.
Atheists believe there is no creator.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 ***** 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 odd of these proteins magically combining themselves into a cell are prohibitive against your bizarre theory of "evolution"

 

[Boss]

Here's one of your fuzzies, that you will argue that you meant something else afterwards:

BOSS SAYS: "We can reasonably deduce that life began in the ocean but oxygen is essential for life... so how did oxygen become abundant in the ocean? The only way for that to happen is through motion of the ocean and without a moon, there is no motion of the ocean, it's a static pond incapable of supporting life. "

Oxygen is 33% of the ocean. It's called H2O.

It doesn't require motion of the ocean. It IS the ocean.

Ok, so I know you're going to say, that you meant something different, like you always do. But you keep saying stuff like this, and then backtracking when you're called out on it. And insisting you're the smartest person on the planet.

Well no... Water is not oxygen. It is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[Boss]

Given that you don't know how the universe started, why not admit it? It's not like you're fooling anyone. By denying it, you're just reinforcing your fortress there on the moral low ground.

I've never denied that I don't know how the universe started. The fact is, it did start somehow.

Given that fact, we have two basic options.... physical nature created itself or spiritual nature created it.

No matter what you believe, you have to believe something came from nothing. Some believe there is a physical explanation and some believe the explanation is spiritual.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You cannot explain where God came from either. None of you can. You have no case against science. You just admitted it.

The fact that we're here should be evidence enough to convince you that there exists a super-intellect that is not bound by the laws of this universe.

That was "wisdom" from the stone age, when they used to sacrifice animals and even people to the almighty God. We are no longer that stupid.

Unless, of course, you believe that the universe created itself and that life just magically appeared.

That is your religionist hypothesis & not only magic but advanced magic. Your God claims to have created advanced

It's one or the other. Which is really easier to believe?

Science is of course. We don't predict that there was a shazaam moment and poof everything appeared including man.

We have the fossil record/plate tetonics & you have nothing.

Then consider all of the other evidence of a creator (intelligent design) and all of the people who have claimed to met Jesus, etc., then the preponderance of the evidence is on a creator. Is that proof? Of course not. But, it is evidence, which is what the op sought.

The only people who have claimed to meet Jesus are in ONE book of fiction.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The OP states 'evidence of god'. Other than a book from 2,000 years ago that was redacted, edited, changed, added to and subtracted from, translated and retranslated, what evidence is there? And what evidence is there that it was YOUR god that did whatever it is you think he/she did, rather than the other 40,000 gods people have worshipped the last 10,000 years.