New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

So you think as I'll mature and grow older than I will acquire a belief, a belief that requires me to ignore a host of scientific facts?


I have a little more faith in myself.

I don't deny he ate meat,i deny he was this predator you believe he was. But i differ with you when he began eating meat.

His teeth were not sunk into the jaw enough to support attacking other dinosaurs and ripping meat out of them.

But mostly because nothing ate meat until after the fall of adam.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be meat eaters teeth?

He ate meat,but was he this predator imagination says he was.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

There's not a lick of scientific evidence for the 'cross-breeding' nonsense. Artificial selection a la breeding, whether it be dogs, cows, or what have you, are bred for specific purposes, not for survival. They demonstrate evolution, but not the filtering of natural selection. This is a key difference you don't seem to understand.

Evolution has in fact been observed, tested and has yet to be disproven. But this is the point where you specify you mean macro-evolution, and the dance begins again.

you don't believe a new breed can come from cross breeding ? But you can believe a new breed could arise through mutations,hmm.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

There's not a lick of scientific evidence for the 'cross-breeding' nonsense. Artificial selection a la breeding, whether it be dogs, cows, or what have you, are bred for specific purposes, not for survival. They demonstrate evolution, but not the filtering of natural selection. This is a key difference you don't seem to understand.

Evolution has in fact been observed, tested and has yet to be disproven. But this is the point where you specify you mean macro-evolution, and the dance begins again.

Yes micro- evolution within a family,not macro.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

Rather your theory is ALWAYS proven - "God did it" explains everything, but more importantly, it explains nothing in this world.

That is exactly why your theory is not in the least scientific, thus has no place in science.

Some things can never be explained,we might get an opinion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's no such thing as 'breeds' within scientific classification. I don't even think you're using the term 'family' correctly.

If God created all animal "families" why can we trace the evolutionary history to species that existed previous? If 'cross-breeding' is actually how it happened, then we should be able to see and trace what was cross-bred when. But as it turns out, that's not what we see in the natural world. There are some, ligers, donkeys, but they are few. If cross-breeding was how we got the diversity, we should be able to trace what species they came from. Hell, if cross-breeding was actually true, all the various species should have the same age, except those that are cross-breeds. That would be the point where, as you say, 'God' created it all. But there isn't, various species have various 'ages' so to speak. They don't have a uniform one. Going further, if it was all created, then why do we see some species arriving on the scene at various points in time, and then going extinct. Why do we see most modern animals arriving relatively late to the party after the billions of years of life's existence on the planet? What were they cross-bred from? Life after all, tends to gear towards organisms of larger complexity as time marches on. Cross-breeding would not explain this.

You begin to see just where this 'cross-breeding' thing ends up not explaining a lot of what we see in modern biology.

And as it turns out, there's no evidence to suggest things were simply created as they were, remained unchanged for all time, and then more organisms created via breeding two species. If that were the case, we should be able to see that sort of trend in the various forms of evidence. But instead they indicate towards the modern theory of evolution.

A family to me is a group but different breeds.

Because all creatures were created with the same type substances under the same code. The information in the genes is whats different,similarity does not prove evolution.

Did you watch the videos i posted ? tell me what you thought ?

That is a remarkably vague definition and the reason for a scientific definitions and classification.

And that doesn't actually address any of the questions I asked concerning cross-breeding at all.

I got through a few minutes of the video. It gave me a few chuckles with saying "real" science doesn't support evolution. Sounds almost like Sarah Palin's "Real" Americans rhetoric. But a public access show is very much not a credible source of information, especially when they say within the first few minutes of the show that their mission is more about theological and philosophical questions. Very much not worth my time or brain cells.

How is that vague,the families are indentified and each breed within the family are identified with a name.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

Rather your theory is ALWAYS proven - "God did it" explains everything, but more importantly, it explains nothing in this world.

That is exactly why your theory is not in the least scientific, thus has no place in science.

Of course because that is what happened we were created, But that does not stop research in science.

The bible gave us many answers it just did not go in to detail.

The bible say's God created all things according to their kind. The bible say's kinds bring forth after their kinds. Is this after all the research that has been done is this not what we see kinds bringing forth after their kind ?

The bible say's we were created from ingredients of the earth,is this not what all things are made up of is ingredients of the earth ?

The bible said the earth was round,is this not a fact ?

The bible mentions the hydrologic system ,that was not know til the 19th century.

The bible said he stretched out the heavens is this not a fact ?

The bible makes accurate predictions. Not bad for a book that began being written over 3,500 years ago.

 

[Si modo]

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

Rather your theory is ALWAYS proven - "God did it" explains everything, but more importantly, it explains nothing in this world.

That is exactly why your theory is not in the least scientific, thus has no place in science.

Of course because that is what happened we were created, But that does not stop research in science.

....

Yes, it does. There is no reason to do work to answer questions that are already answered.

I suppose one could say that they want to better understand how God works, but this theory of yours is not scientific. At all.

I'm not saying there is not room for education in religion. In fact, I think it's necessary so that we can better understand each other.

But, it has no - zero - place in science.

Zip.

.... The bible gave us many answers it just did not go in to detail.

The bible say's God created all things according to their kind. The bible say's kinds bring forth after their kinds. Is this after all the research that has been done is this not what we see kinds bringing forth after their kind ?

The bible say's we were created from ingredients of the earth,is this not what all things are made up of is ingredients of the earth ?

The bible said the earth was round,is this not a fact ?

The bible mentions the hydrologic system ,that was not know til the 19th century.

The bible said he stretched out the heavens is this not a fact ?

The bible makes accurate predictions. Not bad for a book that began being written over 3,500 years ago.

That's great that you believe that. Really. But, it's not scientific. It's a different discipline.

 

[tonystewart1]

If there is "scientific" evidence for GOD, then that's the end of faith, hence the end of religion.

Here's a thought...if you looking for empirical evidence for GOD, you're NOT REALLY a Christian.

Because if you're seeking evidence of GOD, you don't understand the basic tenets THAT religon AT ALL.

My thoughts exactly. We are saved by grace through faith. If it could ever be proved that God exists then that is the end of faith.

 

[Woyzeck]

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

There's not a lick of scientific evidence for the 'cross-breeding' nonsense. Artificial selection a la breeding, whether it be dogs, cows, or what have you, are bred for specific purposes, not for survival. They demonstrate evolution, but not the filtering of natural selection. This is a key difference you don't seem to understand.

Evolution has in fact been observed, tested and has yet to be disproven. But this is the point where you specify you mean macro-evolution, and the dance begins again.

you don't believe a new breed can come from cross breeding ? But you can believe a new breed could arise through mutations,hmm.

'Breeds' isn't part of the scientific classification system. Your vague definition of it is the reason why we have strictly defined terminology in the first place.

 

[Woyzeck]

A family to me is a group but different breeds.

Because all creatures were created with the same type substances under the same code. The information in the genes is whats different,similarity does not prove evolution.

Did you watch the videos i posted ? tell me what you thought ?

That is a remarkably vague definition and the reason for a scientific definitions and classification.

And that doesn't actually address any of the questions I asked concerning cross-breeding at all.

I got through a few minutes of the video. It gave me a few chuckles with saying "real" science doesn't support evolution. Sounds almost like Sarah Palin's "Real" Americans rhetoric. But a public access show is very much not a credible source of information, especially when they say within the first few minutes of the show that their mission is more about theological and philosophical questions. Very much not worth my time or brain cells.

How is that vague,the families are indentified and each breed within the family are identified with a name.

Because it doesn't give any definition of what a breed or family is at all.

I don't see why you, a molecular biologist, seem dead set against using the actual definitions which would be useful to this discussion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Rather your theory is ALWAYS proven - "God did it" explains everything, but more importantly, it explains nothing in this world.

That is exactly why your theory is not in the least scientific, thus has no place in science.

Of course because that is what happened we were created, But that does not stop research in science.

....

Yes, it does. There is no reason to do work to answer questions that are already answered.

I suppose one could say that they want to better understand how God works, but this theory of yours is not scientific. At all.

I'm not saying there is not room for education in religion. In fact, I think it's necessary so that we can better understand each other.

But, it has no - zero - place in science.

Zip.

.... The bible gave us many answers it just did not go in to detail.

The bible say's God created all things according to their kind. The bible say's kinds bring forth after their kinds. Is this after all the research that has been done is this not what we see kinds bringing forth after their kind ?

The bible say's we were created from ingredients of the earth,is this not what all things are made up of is ingredients of the earth ?

The bible said the earth was round,is this not a fact ?

The bible mentions the hydrologic system ,that was not know til the 19th century.

The bible said he stretched out the heavens is this not a fact ?

The bible makes accurate predictions. Not bad for a book that began being written over 3,500 years ago.

That's great that you believe that. Really. But, it's not scientific. It's a different discipline.

Hold on a second,science is trying to figure out how God did it. you think thats all science is to figure out how it happened ? It's doing research to make our lives better.

The biggest problem with evolutionist they rule out creation with no evidence to do so and that view shapes their presuppositions. That is exactly why creationists and evolutionists look at the evidence differently. Evolutionists whether they admit it or not feel threatened by the creationists.

Why ? if they are in search of truth. Most early scientists were creationists now the term is like speaking voodoo. I believe that is why evolutionist are wrong so much because their presuppositions are not supported by the evidence.

Life didn't happen naturally you can think that but that is not the case.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If there is "scientific" evidence for GOD, then that's the end of faith, hence the end of religion.

Here's a thought...if you looking for empirical evidence for GOD, you're NOT REALLY a Christian.

Because if you're seeking evidence of GOD, you don't understand the basic tenets THAT religon AT ALL.

My thoughts exactly. We are saved by grace through faith. If it could ever be proved that God exists then that is the end of faith.

How is it the end to faith ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's not a lick of scientific evidence for the 'cross-breeding' nonsense. Artificial selection a la breeding, whether it be dogs, cows, or what have you, are bred for specific purposes, not for survival. They demonstrate evolution, but not the filtering of natural selection. This is a key difference you don't seem to understand.

Evolution has in fact been observed, tested and has yet to be disproven. But this is the point where you specify you mean macro-evolution, and the dance begins again.

you don't believe a new breed can come from cross breeding ? But you can believe a new breed could arise through mutations,hmm.

'Breeds' isn't part of the scientific classification system. Your vague definition of it is the reason why we have strictly defined terminology in the first place.

Really, vague ? boxer is a breed how is that vague ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is a remarkably vague definition and the reason for a scientific definitions and classification.

And that doesn't actually address any of the questions I asked concerning cross-breeding at all.

I got through a few minutes of the video. It gave me a few chuckles with saying "real" science doesn't support evolution. Sounds almost like Sarah Palin's "Real" Americans rhetoric. But a public access show is very much not a credible source of information, especially when they say within the first few minutes of the show that their mission is more about theological and philosophical questions. Very much not worth my time or brain cells.

How is that vague,the families are indentified and each breed within the family are identified with a name.

Because it doesn't give any definition of what a breed or family is at all.

I don't see why you, a molecular biologist, seem dead set against using the actual definitions which would be useful to this discussion.

Because most of your theory is based on terms and definitions and very little evidence supports your theory. Especially the evidence we can observe.

 

[Si modo]

Of course because that is what happened we were created, But that does not stop research in science.

....

Yes, it does. There is no reason to do work to answer questions that are already answered.

I suppose one could say that they want to better understand how God works, but this theory of yours is not scientific. At all.

I'm not saying there is not room for education in religion. In fact, I think it's necessary so that we can better understand each other.

But, it has no - zero - place in science.

Zip.

.... The bible gave us many answers it just did not go in to detail.

The bible say's God created all things according to their kind. The bible say's kinds bring forth after their kinds. Is this after all the research that has been done is this not what we see kinds bringing forth after their kind ?

The bible say's we were created from ingredients of the earth,is this not what all things are made up of is ingredients of the earth ?

The bible said the earth was round,is this not a fact ?

The bible mentions the hydrologic system ,that was not know til the 19th century.

The bible said he stretched out the heavens is this not a fact ?

The bible makes accurate predictions. Not bad for a book that began being written over 3,500 years ago.

That's great that you believe that. Really. But, it's not scientific. It's a different discipline.

Hold on a second,science is trying to figure out how God did it. you think thats all science is to figure out how it happened ? It's doing research to make our lives better.

The biggest problem with evolutionist they rule out creation with no evidence to do so and that view shapes their presuppositions. That is exactly why creationists and evolutionists look at the evidence differently. Evolutionists whether they admit it or not feel threatened by the creationists.

Why ? if they are in search of truth. Most early scientists were creationists now the term is like speaking voodoo. I believe that is why evolutionist are wrong so much because their presuppositions are not supported by the evidence.

Life didn't happen naturally you can think that but that is not the case.

Still, your 'theory' is not scientific - at all. Yet you try to apply it to science. And, of course, you fail when you try. It's a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Woyzeck]

How is that vague,the families are indentified and each breed within the family are identified with a name.

Because it doesn't give any definition of what a breed or family is at all.

I don't see why you, a molecular biologist, seem dead set against using the actual definitions which would be useful to this discussion.

Because most of your theory is based on terms and definitions and very little evidence supports your theory. Especially the evidence we can observe.

Stop blaming your own ignorance of evolution on words. You can keep jamming your fingers in your ears all you want, but I've already shown you evidence for evolution. Saying there is none is just purposely being ignorant so you can believe your crockpot theory which as Si Modo as been saying as no place in science.

 

[Woyzeck]

you don't believe a new breed can come from cross breeding ? But you can believe a new breed could arise through mutations,hmm.

'Breeds' isn't part of the scientific classification system. Your vague definition of it is the reason why we have strictly defined terminology in the first place.

Really, vague ? boxer is a breed how is that vague ?

That's not how you've been referring about breed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, it does. There is no reason to do work to answer questions that are already answered.

I suppose one could say that they want to better understand how God works, but this theory of yours is not scientific. At all.

I'm not saying there is not room for education in religion. In fact, I think it's necessary so that we can better understand each other.

But, it has no - zero - place in science.

Zip.

That's great that you believe that. Really. But, it's not scientific. It's a different discipline.

Hold on a second,science is trying to figure out how God did it. you think thats all science is to figure out how it happened ? It's doing research to make our lives better.

The biggest problem with evolutionist they rule out creation with no evidence to do so and that view shapes their presuppositions. That is exactly why creationists and evolutionists look at the evidence differently. Evolutionists whether they admit it or not feel threatened by the creationists.

Why ? if they are in search of truth. Most early scientists were creationists now the term is like speaking voodoo. I believe that is why evolutionist are wrong so much because their presuppositions are not supported by the evidence.

Life didn't happen naturally you can think that but that is not the case.

Still, your 'theory' is not scientific - at all. Yet you try to apply it to science. And, of course, you fail when you try. It's a square peg in a round hole.

Explain how design can't fit in to this definition ? if we can detect design which there is much of the evidence why is it wrong to assume someone greater than man created life ? we know it is reckless at best to assume everything we see here is the result of random chance, but that is what your side wants us to accept.

Dictionary






Search Results





Web definitions

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An explanation or idea accepted by a substantial number of scientists.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072452706/student_view0/glos…

A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community.

AMS Weather Glossary

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. ...

LabWrite Glossary

a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.

farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/

"Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. ...

instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/glossary.html

A scientific theory is an explanation or model used to explain observations or experimental results about an observed phenomenon.

bookbuilder.cast.org/view_glossary_full.php

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because it doesn't give any definition of what a breed or family is at all.

I don't see why you, a molecular biologist, seem dead set against using the actual definitions which would be useful to this discussion.

Because most of your theory is based on terms and definitions and very little evidence supports your theory. Especially the evidence we can observe.

Stop blaming your own ignorance of evolution on words. You can keep jamming your fingers in your ears all you want, but I've already shown you evidence for evolution. Saying there is none is just purposely being ignorant so you can believe your crockpot theory which as Si Modo as been saying as no place in science.

Ignorance of your vocabulary after what i did for a living.

 

[Youwerecreated]

'Breeds' isn't part of the scientific classification system. Your vague definition of it is the reason why we have strictly defined terminology in the first place.

Really, vague ? boxer is a breed how is that vague ?

That's not how you've been referring about breed.

I think i have many times.