New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Si modo]

That is the problem with evolutionists, and they're not losing their jobs over it.

I really have no idea what you are going on about.

You said their [scientists] presuppositions are wrong, I asked what those presuppositions are. You said that they presuppose that everything relies on random chance. That's not what scientists do, as the results of their work would be absurd, as I illustrated.

Scientists investigate why seemingly random events occur and through observation and experiment, they explain that there is more than random chance for the event. Their presupposition is that the seemingly random events can be explained with scientific concepts and mechanisms.

At this point, I really suggest you understand what science is and what the logic of scientific discovery is. You've demonstrated that you understand neither.

If you remove all the anecdotal explanations ,that has never been observed ,that supports the theory, the theory would crumble. But new discoveries are taking care of that. Random mutations show more harm to orgamnisms then benefit, anyone who denies that fact are not looking for truth.

First, scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure. Scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen evolution create a new species.

But the fact is that scientists have never observed a new DNA structure form!! They have assumed they have seen new DNA structures form, but they have never actually observed such a phenomenon.

Scientists assume that macroevolution has occurred, but they have never observed macroevolution actually happen!!

Another example, human DNA has been studied for several decades and yet scientists have virtually no clue how a single human fertilized egg can morph into a human baby via the instructions on the DNA inside the fertilized egg.

So another assumption from opinion not observed evidence.

Scientists have never seen or witnessed an atom. They have never seen or witnessed an electron. They have never seen or witnessed a proton.

But all these things exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not exactly new, but fully supported by science.My views will need to be adjusted just a little. I will post the link where you can listen to the audio version which i enjoyed thouroughly or you can read the entire article.


New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

FYI anything from 1994 ain't new anymore.

And there is either scientific evidence or there isn't. You have just pulled the "little bit pregnant" card out of your ass on that one and like anything else that comes out of your ass, it is crap.

Did you miss me saying "]Not exactly new"

 

[Skull Pilot]

I really have no idea what you are going on about.

You said their [scientists] presuppositions are wrong, I asked what those presuppositions are. You said that they presuppose that everything relies on random chance. That's not what scientists do, as the results of their work would be absurd, as I illustrated.

Scientists investigate why seemingly random events occur and through observation and experiment, they explain that there is more than random chance for the event. Their presupposition is that the seemingly random events can be explained with scientific concepts and mechanisms.

At this point, I really suggest you understand what science is and what the logic of scientific discovery is. You've demonstrated that you understand neither.

If you remove all the anecdotal explanations ,that has never been observed ,that supports the theory, the theory would crumble. But new discoveries are taking care of that. Random mutations show more harm to orgamnisms then benefit, anyone who denies that fact are not looking for truth.

First, scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure. Scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen evolution create a new species.

But the fact is that scientists have never observed a new DNA structure form!! They have assumed they have seen new DNA structures form, but they have never actually observed such a phenomenon.

Scientists assume that macroevolution has occurred, but they have never observed macroevolution actually happen!!

Another example, human DNA has been studied for several decades and yet scientists have virtually no clue how a single human fertilized egg can morph into a human baby via the instructions on the DNA inside the fertilized egg.

So another assumption from opinion not observed evidence.

Scientists have never seen or witnessed an atom. They have never seen or witnessed an electron. They have never seen or witnessed a proton.

But all these things exist.

Microscopes zoom in on molecules at last - tech - 28 August 2009 - New Scientist

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms.........


The earliest pictures of individual atoms were captured in the 1970s by blasting a target – typically a chunk of metal – with a beam of electrons, a technique known as transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

It seems we have been able to see atoms for over 40 years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not exactly new, but fully supported by science.My views will need to be adjusted just a little. I will post the link where you can listen to the audio version which i enjoyed thouroughly or you can read the entire article.


New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

FYI anything from 1994 ain't new anymore.

And there is either scientific evidence or there isn't. You have just pulled the "little bit pregnant" card out of your ass on that one and like anything else that comes out of your ass, it is crap.

Did you miss me saying "]Not exactly new"

So it's not exactly new yet you call it new.

Just more of your usual inconsistency.

 

[Si modo]

For removing the possibility that everything is the result of creation relying on random chance as the answer for how.

Except the chance is not so random, as has been pointed out to you on other threads. molecules do not form at random, but according to the valence electrons. As Si pointed out, DNA structure is not determined by a mind but by chemical processes. The valence electrons determine that A pairs with T and not with C or G. There is no "mind" involved at all, and since A pairs only with T it is not random either.

Mutations are random,they're mistakes in transcription. They result in the loss of the origional information. And they are rearranged information that in most cases result in harm to the organism ,even if it provides temporary benefit in some way. Mutations weaken organisms.

Mutations may appear to be random, but they are explained quite well with the science - molecular damage from radiation (UV and others), molecular damage from chemical agents (intercalation, such as agent orange), etc.. Mutations that occur during the replication process (a more random event) are usually repaired by other proteins, so those are very rare compared to environmentally induced mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not exactly new, but fully supported by science.My views will need to be adjusted just a little. I will post the link where you can listen to the audio version which i enjoyed thouroughly or you can read the entire article.


New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

FYI anything from 1994 ain't new anymore.

And there is either scientific evidence or there isn't. You have just pulled the "little bit pregnant" card out of your ass on that one and like anything else that comes out of your ass, it is crap.

I can't resist skull, Darwin began his notebook in the 1800's why do you still believe it

 

[Si modo]

If you remove all the anecdotal explanations ,that has never been observed ,that supports the theory, the theory would crumble. But new discoveries are taking care of that. Random mutations show more harm to orgamnisms then benefit, anyone who denies that fact are not looking for truth.

First, scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure. Scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen evolution create a new species.

But the fact is that scientists have never observed a new DNA structure form!! They have assumed they have seen new DNA structures form, but they have never actually observed such a phenomenon.

Scientists assume that macroevolution has occurred, but they have never observed macroevolution actually happen!!

Another example, human DNA has been studied for several decades and yet scientists have virtually no clue how a single human fertilized egg can morph into a human baby via the instructions on the DNA inside the fertilized egg.

So another assumption from opinion not observed evidence.

Scientists have never seen or witnessed an atom. They have never seen or witnessed an electron. They have never seen or witnessed a proton.

But all these things exist.

Microscopes zoom in on molecules at last - tech - 28 August 2009 - New Scientist

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms.........


The earliest pictures of individual atoms were captured in the 1970s by blasting a target – typically a chunk of metal – with a beam of electrons, a technique known as transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

It seems we have been able to see atoms for over 40 years.

I suggest you read the article again. Pentacene is not an atom.


Regardless, my point apparently went right over your head.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not exactly new, but fully supported by science.My views will need to be adjusted just a little. I will post the link where you can listen to the audio version which i enjoyed thouroughly or you can read the entire article.


New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

FYI anything from 1994 ain't new anymore.

And there is either scientific evidence or there isn't. You have just pulled the "little bit pregnant" card out of your ass on that one and like anything else that comes out of your ass, it is crap.

I can't resist skull, Darwin began his notebook in the 1800's why do you still believe it

I have never said I believe in evolution as Darwin theorized in his original work have I?

And Darwin's theories do have some merit. For example animals best adapted to survive pass on their genes. That is not in dispute anywhere that I know of.

But the man in the sky has not been proven to exist to any scientific standard so you'll understand why you talking about scientific evidence is pretty meaningless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except the chance is not so random, as has been pointed out to you on other threads. molecules do not form at random, but according to the valence electrons. As Si pointed out, DNA structure is not determined by a mind but by chemical processes. The valence electrons determine that A pairs with T and not with C or G. There is no "mind" involved at all, and since A pairs only with T it is not random either.

Mutations are random,they're mistakes in transcription. They result in the loss of the origional information. And they are rearranged information that in most cases result in harm to the organism ,even if it provides temporary benefit in some way. Mutations weaken organisms.

Mutations may appear to be random, but they are explained quite well with the science - molecular damage from radiation (UV and others), molecular damage from chemical agents (intercalation, such as agent orange), etc.. Mutations that occur during the replication process (a more random event) are usually repaired by other proteins, so those are very rare compared to environmentally induced mutations.

All true,that is just more reason to know mutations are not the engine of evolution that and it's rare for a mutated gene to survive in the gene pool because of Natural Selection.

This one of my previous posts.

These are the 9 conditions that must be met but we have problems to point out with them.

Natural Environment.

The environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change.

This condition will not be met.


No Structural Change.

There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral.If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives again, no evolution.

there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet that is a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen.

Net Effect Must be Unidirectional.

The mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant. recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population.non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high. And even most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation.It seems that neither part of this third condition will be fulfilled.

all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

High Mutation Rate.

The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large.In order for the Probably Mutation Effect to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary.

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

Large Population.

This condition is that the population involved must be large, because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when the condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population.

Some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, it is death to evolutionary change then.

Selective Neutrality of Polygenes.

Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral.

this does not occur ,it was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

Little Hybridization.

There must be little or no hybridizing admixture.This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts the second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change.

the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

Necessity of High Penetrance.

The genetic structures involved must have high penetrance. Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutations. It means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it presents another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But the third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is a contradiction. fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight.

What a theory

High Heritability.

The phenotype must have high heritability.This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is very low.

Summary.

the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth.

Look, like i said before your theory is impossible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Scientists have never seen or witnessed an atom. They have never seen or witnessed an electron. They have never seen or witnessed a proton.

But all these things exist.

Microscopes zoom in on molecules at last - tech - 28 August 2009 - New Scientist

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms.........


The earliest pictures of individual atoms were captured in the 1970s by blasting a target – typically a chunk of metal – with a beam of electrons, a technique known as transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

It seems we have been able to see atoms for over 40 years.

I suggest you read the article again. Pentacene is not an atom.


Regardless, my point apparently went right over your head.

Excuse me but the part I quoted was not about pentacene was it? It was a reference to how long ago the image of an individual atom was captured.

That article delves into the fact that it has been easier to see individual atoms than is has molecules. as it says in the very first paragraph

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms. But strange though it might seem, imaging larger molecules at the same level of detail has not been possible – atoms are robust enough to withstand existing tools, but the structures of molecules are not. Now researchers at IBM have come up with a way to do it.

Maybe you should read it before you assume I haven't.

Don't feel so smug now do you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

FYI anything from 1994 ain't new anymore.

And there is either scientific evidence or there isn't. You have just pulled the "little bit pregnant" card out of your ass on that one and like anything else that comes out of your ass, it is crap.

I can't resist skull, Darwin began his notebook in the 1800's why do you still believe it

I have never said I believe in evolution as Darwin theorized in his original work have I?

And Darwin's theories do have some merit. For example animals best adapted to survive pass on their genes. That is not in dispute anywhere that I know of.

But the man in the sky has not been proven to exist to any scientific standard so you'll understand why you talking about scientific evidence is pretty meaningless.

Well where do you think the idea of Neo and Punctutaed equilibrium came from. They just filled in the gaps and the mistakes darwin made.

 

[Si modo]

Mutations are random,they're mistakes in transcription. They result in the loss of the origional information. And they are rearranged information that in most cases result in harm to the organism ,even if it provides temporary benefit in some way. Mutations weaken organisms.

Mutations may appear to be random, but they are explained quite well with the science - molecular damage from radiation (UV and others), molecular damage from chemical agents (intercalation, such as agent orange), etc.. Mutations that occur during the replication process (a more random event) are usually repaired by other proteins, so those are very rare compared to environmentally induced mutations.

All true,that is just more reason to know mutations are not the engine of evolution that and it's rare for a mutated gene to survive in the gene pool because of Natural Selection.

....

What are you going on about? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mutations are not always bad, nor are they always good, nor do they always make a lick of difference.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Microscopes zoom in on molecules at last - tech - 28 August 2009 - New Scientist



It seems we have been able to see atoms for over 40 years.

I suggest you read the article again. Pentacene is not an atom.


Regardless, my point apparently went right over your head.

Excuse me but the part I quoted was not about pentacene was it? It was a reference to how long ago the image of an individual atom was captured.

That article delves into the fact that it has been easier to see individual atoms than is has molecules. as it says in the very first paragraph

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms. But strange though it might seem, imaging larger molecules at the same level of detail has not been possible – atoms are robust enough to withstand existing tools, but the structures of molecules are not. Now researchers at IBM have come up with a way to do it.

Maybe you should read it before you assume I haven't.

Don't feel so smug now do you?

Are you missing my point of the post, all of those have to happen for your theory to be true.

Or unless i am mistaken of what you quoted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I can't resist skull, Darwin began his notebook in the 1800's why do you still believe it

I have never said I believe in evolution as Darwin theorized in his original work have I?

And Darwin's theories do have some merit. For example animals best adapted to survive pass on their genes. That is not in dispute anywhere that I know of.

But the man in the sky has not been proven to exist to any scientific standard so you'll understand why you talking about scientific evidence is pretty meaningless.

Well where do you think the idea of Neo and Punctutaed equilibrium came from. They just filled in the gaps and the mistakes darwin made.

When have i ever said we completely understand the origin of life?

I seem to remember saying many times that we do not have all the answers and that we may never have them because we are incapable of understanding due to our own limitations.

It's you who have to make up the magic man in the sky not me.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah i believe you're correct and i have no explanation for that for the collisions,but Dr.Ross touched on 42 evidences that any of them were off life would not exist. Example,if our days were any longer or shorter than the 24 hour cycle,life on this planet would have a very difficult time surviving the natural disaters.

That's pure BS because our days are getting longer, by 1 thousandth of a second every day, which is about a second every 3 years. So using your 6,000 year old Earth, a day was about 23 1/2 hours long during creation.

Well wait til we hit to the 25th hour.

I only am interested in the one question I posted, that only one person has attempted to answer and failed miserably, respectfully.

So after shooting down Ross' claim that if any ONE of his 42 "evidences" were off life would not exist, using the very example YOU chose, you want to cut and run.
Thank You.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I suggest you read the article again. Pentacene is not an atom.


Regardless, my point apparently went right over your head.

Excuse me but the part I quoted was not about pentacene was it? It was a reference to how long ago the image of an individual atom was captured.

That article delves into the fact that it has been easier to see individual atoms than is has molecules. as it says in the very first paragraph

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms. But strange though it might seem, imaging larger molecules at the same level of detail has not been possible – atoms are robust enough to withstand existing tools, but the structures of molecules are not. Now researchers at IBM have come up with a way to do it.

Maybe you should read it before you assume I haven't.

Don't feel so smug now do you?

Are you missing my point of the post, all of those have to happen for your theory to be true.

Or unless i am mistaken of what you quoted.

What theory are you talking about.

You stated that scientists have never seen an atom. All I did was point out your error.

 

[Si modo]

Microscopes zoom in on molecules at last - tech - 28 August 2009 - New Scientist



It seems we have been able to see atoms for over 40 years.

I suggest you read the article again. Pentacene is not an atom.


Regardless, my point apparently went right over your head.

Excuse me but the part I quoted was not about pentacene was it? It was a reference to how long ago the image of an individual atom was captured.

That article delves into the fact that it has been easier to see individual atoms than is has molecules. as it says in the very first paragraph

Thanks to specialised microscopes, we have long been able to see the beauty of single atoms. But strange though it might seem, imaging larger molecules at the same level of detail has not been possible – atoms are robust enough to withstand existing tools, but the structures of molecules are not. Now researchers at IBM have come up with a way to do it.

Maybe you should read it before you assume I haven't.

Don't feel so smug now do you?

I still recommend you read the article. The atom was not seen. The electron density of the atom was outlined, but not the atom and that outline is based on a model of the data TEM provides.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations may appear to be random, but they are explained quite well with the science - molecular damage from radiation (UV and others), molecular damage from chemical agents (intercalation, such as agent orange), etc.. Mutations that occur during the replication process (a more random event) are usually repaired by other proteins, so those are very rare compared to environmentally induced mutations.

All true,that is just more reason to know mutations are not the engine of evolution that and it's rare for a mutated gene to survive in the gene pool because of Natural Selection.

....

What are you going on about? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mutations are not always bad, nor are they always good, nor do they always make a lick of difference.

Beneficial mutations are rare do you disagree ?

There are far more neutral and harmful mutations then beneficial mutations which makes the theory wrong.You need a net gain of beneficial information and thats not the case. There are over 4,500 genetic disorders and how many beneficial genes that came from a mutation ?

Mutated genes do not have a very good chance of surviving in the genepool.

This is my last response for the last time until someone attempts to answer my question this thread should be dead soon.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Excuse me but the part I quoted was not about pentacene was it? It was a reference to how long ago the image of an individual atom was captured.

That article delves into the fact that it has been easier to see individual atoms than is has molecules. as it says in the very first paragraph



Maybe you should read it before you assume I haven't.

Don't feel so smug now do you?

Are you missing my point of the post, all of those have to happen for your theory to be true.

Or unless i am mistaken of what you quoted.

What theory are you talking about.

You stated that scientists have never seen an atom. All I did was point out your error.

I will read it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's pure BS because our days are getting longer, by 1 thousandth of a second every day, which is about a second every 3 years. So using your 6,000 year old Earth, a day was about 23 1/2 hours long during creation.

Well wait til we hit to the 25th hour.

I only am interested in the one question I posted, that only one person has attempted to answer and failed miserably, respectfully.

So after shooting down Ross' claim that if any ONE of his 42 "evidences" were off life would not exist, using the very example YOU chose, you want to cut and run.
Thank You.

One out of 41, if that is a football game you got whipped. I said 42 but i misquoted ross.