New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Si modo]

Well it's time for my bike ride, i shall return to see if there is an answer to the atheist's riddle.

Several of us answered it yesterday.

Are you serious

Yes. Unless you have some new "atheist riddle". I know I answered it. You didn't particularly care for the answer, though. But, I answered it...twice, I believe.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well it's time for my bike ride, i shall return to see if there is an answer to the atheist's riddle.

Several of us answered it yesterday.

Are you serious

Yes, if someone provides an answer that doesn't include biblical verses you don't like it, we can't help that.



We're more interested in providing the answers to scientific questions with science, not a book from a couple thousand years ago having nothing to do with science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here are some links that may be some use to you. They are examples of evolution being tested by experiment and one by observation, I think.

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

Once again woyzeck you're posting evidence of that same sort of thing that went on with the galapagos island finches. Their DNA is evidently compatible and what they're seeing is the result of cross breeding not evolution. SAME thing that has been seen in dogs,horses,and cats. The results are different looking lizards.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Several of us answered it yesterday.

Are you serious

Yes, if someone provides an answer that doesn't include biblical verses you don't like it, we can't help that.



We're more interested in providing the answers to scientific questions with science, not a book from a couple thousand years ago having nothing to do with science.

Need i remind you, i worked with a team of other biologists observing the results of mutations in my younger years. I don't just go by bible scriptures to shape my thoughts.

What i do expect, if you're gonna make a claim support it with evidence. Give some sort of explanation and let's analyze the explanation, something like i did earlier when asked to show an argument against Macro-evolution and show support for design i did that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Several of us answered it yesterday.

Are you serious

Yes. Unless you have some new "atheist riddle". I know I answered it. You didn't particularly care for the answer, though. But, I answered it...twice, I believe.

Well ? refresh my memory please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:



The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

I'll help you , Vivid imagination.

I will click your links and point out that they don't have a clue when i return.

This will be the actual first time you have actually look at the evidence I presented and will critique it.

I look forward to it.

Be honest now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no such thing as proving a theory in science. That is also a principle in the LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, which you said you read.

Oh yeah ,i just see that as a convient way to say we don't have a clue.

....

I suppose that is one way to actually look at it. As such - "not having a clue" - we, scientists, ensure that investigation, discovery, and the expansion of knowledge continues.

.... When only part of your theory can be observed and proven ,you see the problems it presents for the rest of the theory, that is only a product of ones vivid imagination.

....

As scientific theories are falsifiable and as we often DO see problems, that is part of the excitement of science and the continuation of science. We are a curious lot, and want to find out why things happen the way they do.

We are an inherently lazy lot, too. If we have a theory or even a law that already explains something, we certainly are not going to waste our time doing more work to support something we already know for a fact. We'll go fishing (or shopping, for the ladies ) instead.

.... That is so they have something to fall back on that is a little convient no ?

It certainly is convenient in that it allows science to continue to investigate, discover, and expand knowledge.

Speak for yourself,i ride my bike 10 miles a day whether i need it or not and havn't been fishing in years.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Are you serious

Yes, if someone provides an answer that doesn't include biblical verses you don't like it, we can't help that.



We're more interested in providing the answers to scientific questions with science, not a book from a couple thousand years ago having nothing to do with science.

Need i remind you, i worked with a team of other biologists observing the results of mutations in my younger years. I don't just go by bible scriptures to shape my thoughts.

What i do expect, if you're gonna make a claim support it with evidence. Give some sort of explanation and let's analyze the explanation, something like i did earlier when asked to show an argument against Macro-evolution and show support for design i did that.

Yeah but when people provide evidence, and that evidence has to do with evolution, you just blindly say "I've disproven evolution, new evidence please." That of course is absolutely ridiculous to say that, but when the answer to the question has to do with evolution, and you refuse to accept basic science like evolution, then we have no way of giving you evidence you'll take seriously unless it has to do with a voice in our head or an old story.

 

[CryingKoala]

So what peer reviewed scientific journal was this evidence of God published in? None.

Its crap. Was that so hard?

 

[Woyzeck]

Did they prove it or is it only theory ?

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

Once again woyzeck you're posting evidence of that same sort of thing that went on with the galapagos island finches. Their DNA is evidently compatible and what they're seeing is the result of cross breeding not evolution. SAME thing that has been seen in dogs,horses,and cats. The results are different looking lizards.

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So what peer reviewed scientific journal was this evidence of God published in? None.

Its crap. Was that so hard?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:



The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

Once again woyzeck you're posting evidence of that same sort of thing that went on with the galapagos island finches. Their DNA is evidently compatible and what they're seeing is the result of cross breeding not evolution. SAME thing that has been seen in dogs,horses,and cats. The results are different looking lizards.

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

There was only one link i saw, it was lizards.

You don't understand what cross breeding means ?

 

[CryingKoala]

If you are going in for the "Did they prove it or is it only theory ?" argument you are already showing me you are ignorant as to how the science actually operates so there is no need to pretend you would be able to produce scientific evidence of anything.

So might as well cut to the chase here. Instead of pretending something is science, you can use the ready made bullcrap detector the scientific community has created for us, the peer review system.

If it isn't in a peer reviewed journal, it means whatever study or research has not passed muster among those in the field for sound methodologies or reasonably supportable conclusions. It means its crap until further notice.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You didn't bother to click them did you?

Fun fact! Theory has two separate definitions, one which is used in science, and the other used in common everyday language. In science, theory means:



The other definition simply means 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture.' Evolution is a scientific theory in the first sense of the definition, not the second.

Once again woyzeck you're posting evidence of that same sort of thing that went on with the galapagos island finches. Their DNA is evidently compatible and what they're seeing is the result of cross breeding not evolution. SAME thing that has been seen in dogs,horses,and cats. The results are different looking lizards.

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

Oh ok i found the others.

Once again, because an organism can adapt to it's surrounding is not evidence of Macro-evolution. That is evidence of the only evolution ever observed Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

That fish is still the same fish it adapted to it's enviornment.The Bacteria the same thing can be said, it's still bacteria that adapted.

If i go to a much higher altitude to live,and it was much i higher altitude then my body is use to but over time i get use to it. Is that evolving or adapting ?

 

[Woyzeck]

Once again woyzeck you're posting evidence of that same sort of thing that went on with the galapagos island finches. Their DNA is evidently compatible and what they're seeing is the result of cross breeding not evolution. SAME thing that has been seen in dogs,horses,and cats. The results are different looking lizards.

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

There was only one link i saw, it was lizards.

You don't understand what cross breeding means ?

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

 

[Woyzeck]

Once again woyzeck you're posting evidence of that same sort of thing that went on with the galapagos island finches. Their DNA is evidently compatible and what they're seeing is the result of cross breeding not evolution. SAME thing that has been seen in dogs,horses,and cats. The results are different looking lizards.

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

Oh ok i found the others.

Once again, because an organism can adapt to it's surrounding is not evidence of Macro-evolution. That is evidence of the only evolution ever observed Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

Oh this again. You claim no evidence for evolution, someone presents it, then you specify macro-evolution. How quaint. I'm not sure why you claim to not accept evolution, but then accept micro-evolution, but not the possibility of new species.

How do you explain the existence prior species, if all species have remained constant for all time? We know for certain that some only lived in a very specific time frame of natural history. Did they just come from nothing, not evolving from already existing species?

That fish is still the same fish it adapted to it's enviornment.The Bacteria the same thing can be said, it's still bacteria that adapted.

Environmental adaption is pretty key to evolutionary change. And given enough changes, this will induce a new species, provided geographic isolation, and some other factors.

By the way, do you know what separates and defines the E. coli used by Lenski's experiment and the harmful kind like Salmonella? The non-harmful e. coli cannot process citrate. Guess what the non-harmful kind evolved to do in the long-term experiment? Process citrate.

If i go to a much higher altitude to live,and it was much i higher altitude then my body is use to but over time i get use to it. Is that evolving or adapting ?

Adapting, but it's a faulty analogy, evolution doesn't work that way.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

There was only one link i saw, it was lizards.

You don't understand what cross breeding means ?

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But in this case they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

Oh ok i found the others.

Once again, because an organism can adapt to it's surrounding is not evidence of Macro-evolution. That is evidence of the only evolution ever observed Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

Oh this again. You claim no evidence for evolution, someone presents it, then you specify macro-evolution. How quaint. I'm not sure why you claim to not accept evolution, but then accept micro-evolution, but not the possibility of new species.

How do you explain the existence prior species, if all species have remained constant for all time? We know for certain that some only lived in a very specific time frame of natural history. Did they just come from nothing, not evolving from already existing species?

That fish is still the same fish it adapted to it's enviornment.The Bacteria the same thing can be said, it's still bacteria that adapted.

Environmental adaption is pretty key to evolutionary change. And given enough changes, this will induce a new species, provided geographic isolation, and some other factors.

By the way, do you know what separates and defines the E. coli used by Lenski's experiment and the harmful kind like Salmonella? The non-harmful e. coli cannot process citrate. Guess what the non-harmful kind evolved to do in the long-term experiment? Process citrate.

If i go to a much higher altitude to live,and it was much i higher altitude then my body is use to but over time i get use to it. Is that evolving or adapting ?

Adapting, but it's a faulty analogy, evolution doesn't work that way.

According to who your teachers and books ?

 

[Si modo]

There was only one link i saw, it was lizards.

You don't understand what cross breeding means ?

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But in this case they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

The x-breeds (between species) may be able to procreated, but their offspring can't.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's funny you brought up the finches on Galapagos, because those are often held up as a fine example of speciation. The quick evolutionary rate of these lizards heavily suggests they will undergo something similar to the finches.

By the way, where the blimey does "cross-breeding" factor into the lizards, or even the finches on the Galapagos islands? What do you mean by DNA being compatible?

They're related closely enough to reproduce offspring.

You can see that with lions and tigers ,the only reason why they don't cross breed is because the isolation or animals run in groups of their kind. But in this case they're isolated from each other because tigers are in Asia and lions are in Africa.

Isolated long enough lions and tigers may not be able to cross. You may call this Macro-evolution fine if you want to, but it is really just Micro-evolution which happens with no doubt. The evolution that creationist object to is that the cats evolved from a creature from the water or humans came from an apelike creature that is the evolution we object to no matter what name you want to put on it.

The x-breeds (between species) may be able to procreated, but their offspring can't.

What ? explain.