New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

You were already told how that happens - horizontal (lateral) gene transfer.

Informational genes are less likely to be horizontally transferred so how is that making your point ?

Link?

Specifically, genes participating in transcription, translation, and related processes (informational genes) are far less likely to be horizontally transferred than genes participating in housekeeping functions (operational genes) (9). Furthermore, the frequency of horizontal transfer in prokaryotes is not related to evolutionary rates (nucleotide substitution rates) because evolutionary rates for operational and informational genes have not differed significantly since the cyanobacteria and proteobacteria diverged (9).

Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis

 

[HUGGY]

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

This is just more "new" evidence that you are a ******* halfwit.

 

[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

This is just more "new" evidence that you are a ******* halfwit.

You are one step up in evolution over later tater.

 

[Si modo]

Informational genes are less likely to be horizontally transferred so how is that making your point ?

Link?

Specifically, genes participating in transcription, translation, and related processes (informational genes) are far less likely to be horizontally transferred than genes participating in housekeeping functions (operational genes) (9). Furthermore, the frequency of horizontal transfer in prokaryotes is not related to evolutionary rates (nucleotide substitution rates) because evolutionary rates for operational and informational genes have not differed significantly since the cyanobacteria and proteobacteria diverged (9).

Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis

Well, as the proteins responsible for those processes are similar across species, that's not near catastrophic to anything you really want it to be.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Link?

Specifically, genes participating in transcription, translation, and related processes (informational genes) are far less likely to be horizontally transferred than genes participating in housekeeping functions (operational genes) (9). Furthermore, the frequency of horizontal transfer in prokaryotes is not related to evolutionary rates (nucleotide substitution rates) because evolutionary rates for operational and informational genes have not differed significantly since the cyanobacteria and proteobacteria diverged (9).

Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis

Well, as the proteins responsible for those processes are similar across species, that's not near catastrophic to anything you really want it to be.

I don't need it to be anything,but it shows you were wrong and it doesn't support your claim. Anyway ill talk to you tomorrow if later water don't have me banned for speaking my view. The only one that attacked character here was her or him but I guess the person is not intelligent enough to see that. She did this in another thread to.

 

[edthecynic]

Really where ?

The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants


Going back in history, we can measure the time when the Earth was rotating every 20 hours. When the Earth was rotating once every 20 hours, human life was not possible. If it rotates once every 28 hours, human life will not be possible. It can only happen at 24 hours.

Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

Human life existed millions of years ago when days were much shorter than 20 hours.
Time for Neo-Superstitionists to move the goalposts again.

Ok i do remember that,i was just listening to the audio.

What is your proof human life existed millions of years ago ?

Try google, lazybones.

Eras and Their Highlights - When Did Humans First Walk On The Face Of The Earth?: History Fact Finder
When did humans first walk on the face of the Earth?

Many paleoanthropologists (scientists who study fossil remains of ancient peoples) believe that an early human being (hominid; a primate that walked upright) appeared sometime between 10,000,000 and 4,000,000 years ago. According to the most recent theory, humans are closely related to the great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas), although scientists have not yet found a common ancestor. In 1974 American paleoanthropologist Donald C. Johanson (1943– ) discovered the partial skeleton—the skull was missing—of a female hominid at Hadar, Ethiopia. Estimated to be about 3,200,000 years old, the creature stood 3.5 feet (.94 meters) tall and, though apelike, had definitely walked upright. Paleoanthropologists consider an upright walking posture to be the first significant change that distinguished hominids from apes. Johanson gave the creature the...
(The entire page is 294 words.)

 

[Youwerecreated]

Human life existed millions of years ago when days were much shorter than 20 hours.
Time for Neo-Superstitionists to move the goalposts again.

Ok i do remember that,i was just listening to the audio.

What is your proof human life existed millions of years ago ?

Try google, lazybones.

Eras and Their Highlights - When Did Humans First Walk On The Face Of The Earth?: History Fact Finder
When did humans first walk on the face of the Earth?

Many paleoanthropologists (scientists who study fossil remains of ancient peoples) believe that an early human being (hominid; a primate that walked upright) appeared sometime between 10,000,000 and 4,000,000 years ago. According to the most recent theory, humans are closely related to the great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas), although scientists have not yet found a common ancestor. In 1974 American paleoanthropologist Donald C. Johanson (1943– ) discovered the partial skeleton—the skull was missing—of a female hominid at Hadar, Ethiopia. Estimated to be about 3,200,000 years old, the creature stood 3.5 feet (.94 meters) tall and, though apelike, had definitely walked upright. Paleoanthropologists consider an upright walking posture to be the first significant change that distinguished hominids from apes. Johanson gave the creature the...
(The entire page is 294 words.)

Ah ha,you got me or did you.

I did use google and i was waiting for your response. The first problem with your evidence is,many scientists believe, but not all, that hardly sounds convincing.

Let me give you an example.

Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years.

New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. But even then the researchers themselves questioned the accuracy of the dating technique

Oldest Human Fossils Identified

MADRID, Spain — A small piece of jawbone unearthed in a cave in Spain is the oldest known fossil of a human ancestor in Europe and suggests that people lived on the continent much earlier than previously believed, scientists say.

The researchers said the fossil found last year at Atapuerca in northern Spain, along with stone tools and animal bones, is up to 1.3 million years old. That would be 500,000 years older than remains from a 1997 find that prompted the naming of a new species: Homo antecessor, or Pioneer Man, possibly a common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern humans.

Oldest known human fossil found - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia

By Frank Gaglioti
25 July 2003

A team of 45 scientists from 14 different countries led by Professor Tim White from Berkeley University has uncovered and assembled three fossilised skulls from Ethiopia that provide the oldest record of modern humans. The fossils give strong support to what is known as the Out of Africa theory: that humans first evolved in Africa and then migrated to other regions and ultimately the entire globe.

The landmark discovery was made public in the scientific journal Nature on June 12. The find was made in 1997 in an arid valley close to the Middle Awash River near the village of Herto, 225 kilometres northeast of Addis Ababa. The three skulls—two adults and one child—were so fragmented that it took five years to piece them together and were dated at 160,000 years old using the Argon-Argon method. The dating was quite precise as the fossils were found between two layers of volcanic ash.

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia


So which one can we trust ? I told you i don't trust the dating methods.

 

[edthecynic]

Ok i do remember that,i was just listening to the audio.

What is your proof human life existed millions of years ago ?

Try google, lazybones.

Eras and Their Highlights - When Did Humans First Walk On The Face Of The Earth?: History Fact Finder
When did humans first walk on the face of the Earth?

Many paleoanthropologists (scientists who study fossil remains of ancient peoples) believe that an early human being (hominid; a primate that walked upright) appeared sometime between 10,000,000 and 4,000,000 years ago. According to the most recent theory, humans are closely related to the great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas), although scientists have not yet found a common ancestor. In 1974 American paleoanthropologist Donald C. Johanson (1943– ) discovered the partial skeleton—the skull was missing—of a female hominid at Hadar, Ethiopia. Estimated to be about 3,200,000 years old, the creature stood 3.5 feet (.94 meters) tall and, though apelike, had definitely walked upright. Paleoanthropologists consider an upright walking posture to be the first significant change that distinguished hominids from apes. Johanson gave the creature the...
(The entire page is 294 words.)

Ah ha,you got me or did you.

I did use google and i was waiting for your response. The first problem with your evidence is,many scientists believe, but not all, that hardly sounds convincing.

Let me give you an example.

Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years.

New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. But even then the researchers themselves questioned the accuracy of the dating technique

Oldest Human Fossils Identified

MADRID, Spain — A small piece of jawbone unearthed in a cave in Spain is the oldest known fossil of a human ancestor in Europe and suggests that people lived on the continent much earlier than previously believed, scientists say.

The researchers said the fossil found last year at Atapuerca in northern Spain, along with stone tools and animal bones, is up to 1.3 million years old. That would be 500,000 years older than remains from a 1997 find that prompted the naming of a new species: Homo antecessor, or Pioneer Man, possibly a common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern humans.

Oldest known human fossil found - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia

By Frank Gaglioti
25 July 2003

A team of 45 scientists from 14 different countries led by Professor Tim White from Berkeley University has uncovered and assembled three fossilised skulls from Ethiopia that provide the oldest record of modern humans. The fossils give strong support to what is known as the Out of Africa theory: that humans first evolved in Africa and then migrated to other regions and ultimately the entire globe.

The landmark discovery was made public in the scientific journal Nature on June 12. The find was made in 1997 in an arid valley close to the Middle Awash River near the village of Herto, 225 kilometres northeast of Addis Ababa. The three skulls—two adults and one child—were so fragmented that it took five years to piece them together and were dated at 160,000 years old using the Argon-Argon method. The dating was quite precise as the fossils were found between two layers of volcanic ash.

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia


So which one can we trust ? I told you i don't trust the dating methods.

Well, take the youngest date 130,000 years ago. A day would still be much less than 20 hours.

 

[Si modo]

Specifically, genes participating in transcription, translation, and related processes (informational genes) are far less likely to be horizontally transferred than genes participating in housekeeping functions (operational genes) (9). Furthermore, the frequency of horizontal transfer in prokaryotes is not related to evolutionary rates (nucleotide substitution rates) because evolutionary rates for operational and informational genes have not differed significantly since the cyanobacteria and proteobacteria diverged (9).

Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis

Well, as the proteins responsible for those processes are similar across species, that's not near catastrophic to anything you really want it to be.

I don't need it to be anything,but it shows you were wrong and it doesn't support your claim.

....

It does nothing of the sort.

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I just read some of the article linked in the OP.

From what I gathered, the so-called scientific evidence for god is someone pretty arbitrarily deciding that the big bang equates to the existence of Jesus. That isn't just ridiculous, it's laughable.

The author used the argument that, because no other holy book describes god as creating the universe outside the bounds of time, if time was created at the big bang, the bible must be correct. Perhaps, if the only possibilities were the current holy books of mankind, that would make some sense. Since that is obviously not the case, the argument fails utterly.

What this actually seems to be is someone taking a discovery and doing every kind of mental gymnastics he can to make it fit into his religious beliefs. If the big bang is proven to be how our universe began, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god(s).

And as I've said on this board before, unless god is first defined in scientific terms, it is pretty futile to try to compile evidence of such a being's existence. If god is a supernatural being not bound by the physical laws of the universe, how could science, which deals with the physical universe, provide evidence of god? The discussion looks to have evolved (pun intended! ) past the OP, but I felt the need to throw in my two cents.

 

[Steelplate]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I just read some of the article linked in the OP.

From what I gathered, the so-called scientific evidence for god is someone pretty arbitrarily deciding that the big bang equates to the existence of Jesus. That isn't just ridiculous, it's laughable.

The author used the argument that, because no other holy book describes god as creating the universe outside the bounds of time, if time was created at the big bang, the bible must be correct. Perhaps, if the only possibilities were the current holy books of mankind, that would make some sense. Since that is obviously not the case, the argument fails utterly.

What this actually seems to be is someone taking a discovery and doing every kind of mental gymnastics he can to make it fit into his religious beliefs. If the big bang is proven to be how our universe began, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god(s).

And as I've said on this board before, unless god is first defined in scientific terms, it is pretty futile to try to compile evidence of such a being's existence. If god is a supernatural being not bound by the physical laws of the universe, how could science, which deals with the physical universe, provide evidence of god? The discussion looks to have evolved (pun intended! ) past the OP, but I felt the need to throw in my two cents.

Best post of the thread, well done.

 

[editec]

I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.

I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.

In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.

In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.

Really...what's the point?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Try google, lazybones.

Eras and Their Highlights - When Did Humans First Walk On The Face Of The Earth?: History Fact Finder
When did humans first walk on the face of the Earth?

Many paleoanthropologists (scientists who study fossil remains of ancient peoples) believe that an early human being (hominid; a primate that walked upright) appeared sometime between 10,000,000 and 4,000,000 years ago. According to the most recent theory, humans are closely related to the great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas), although scientists have not yet found a common ancestor. In 1974 American paleoanthropologist Donald C. Johanson (1943– ) discovered the partial skeleton—the skull was missing—of a female hominid at Hadar, Ethiopia. Estimated to be about 3,200,000 years old, the creature stood 3.5 feet (.94 meters) tall and, though apelike, had definitely walked upright. Paleoanthropologists consider an upright walking posture to be the first significant change that distinguished hominids from apes. Johanson gave the creature the...
(The entire page is 294 words.)

Ah ha,you got me or did you.

I did use google and i was waiting for your response. The first problem with your evidence is,many scientists believe, but not all, that hardly sounds convincing.

Let me give you an example.

Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years.

New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. But even then the researchers themselves questioned the accuracy of the dating technique

Oldest Human Fossils Identified

MADRID, Spain — A small piece of jawbone unearthed in a cave in Spain is the oldest known fossil of a human ancestor in Europe and suggests that people lived on the continent much earlier than previously believed, scientists say.

The researchers said the fossil found last year at Atapuerca in northern Spain, along with stone tools and animal bones, is up to 1.3 million years old. That would be 500,000 years older than remains from a 1997 find that prompted the naming of a new species: Homo antecessor, or Pioneer Man, possibly a common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern humans.

Oldest known human fossil found - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia

By Frank Gaglioti
25 July 2003

A team of 45 scientists from 14 different countries led by Professor Tim White from Berkeley University has uncovered and assembled three fossilised skulls from Ethiopia that provide the oldest record of modern humans. The fossils give strong support to what is known as the Out of Africa theory: that humans first evolved in Africa and then migrated to other regions and ultimately the entire globe.

The landmark discovery was made public in the scientific journal Nature on June 12. The find was made in 1997 in an arid valley close to the Middle Awash River near the village of Herto, 225 kilometres northeast of Addis Ababa. The three skulls—two adults and one child—were so fragmented that it took five years to piece them together and were dated at 160,000 years old using the Argon-Argon method. The dating was quite precise as the fossils were found between two layers of volcanic ash.

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia


So which one can we trust ? I told you i don't trust the dating methods.

Well, take the youngest date 130,000 years ago. A day would still be much less than 20 hours.

I guess you missed the point, there are a big discrepancies in the dates.

If you want and support that as evidence so be it,but you're are just using opinions that are not reliable or proven. It definately don't prove you right and me wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, as the proteins responsible for those processes are similar across species, that's not near catastrophic to anything you really want it to be.

I don't need it to be anything,but it shows you were wrong and it doesn't support your claim.

....

It does nothing of the sort.

It does not support what you were saying. if it does please explain how it does ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Frankly I'm amazed YWC is bragging about his degree from Arizona.

Evolution

Some great podcasts on their website on the following subjects;

Biological Evolution

Cosmic Evolution

Social Evolution

Animal Evolution

Human Evolution

and the one I've already addressed that YWC blindly dismissed because he was too lazy to read about it, Disease Evolution



I'm surprised he would brag about getting his education from an institution that teaches so many "crazy" theories that YWC has already totally debunked.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I cannot think of a greater waste of time than arguing with somebody's FAITH.

I don't understand why believers bother with it, and I especially don't understand why non-believers bother with it.

In order to really debate something, the debaters have to have enough COMMON GROUND to even have the debate.

In this case there is no common ground because one is coming at the discussion based on FAITH and the other is not.

Really...what's the point?

Because science is being drug into it, science of course never proving or disproving the existence of a god.


The reason YWC hates science, is because many different scientific fields have proven parts of the Bible to be impossible and downright crazy. So he's going to continue his own personal war against science until he's pushing up daisies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry to jump into this so late, but I just read some of the article linked in the OP.

From what I gathered, the so-called scientific evidence for god is someone pretty arbitrarily deciding that the big bang equates to the existence of Jesus. That isn't just ridiculous, it's laughable.

The author used the argument that, because no other holy book describes god as creating the universe outside the bounds of time, if time was created at the big bang, the bible must be correct. Perhaps, if the only possibilities were the current holy books of mankind, that would make some sense. Since that is obviously not the case, the argument fails utterly.

What this actually seems to be is someone taking a discovery and doing every kind of mental gymnastics he can to make it fit into his religious beliefs. If the big bang is proven to be how our universe began, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god(s).

And as I've said on this board before, unless god is first defined in scientific terms, it is pretty futile to try to compile evidence of such a being's existence. If god is a supernatural being not bound by the physical laws of the universe, how could science, which deals with the physical universe, provide evidence of god? The discussion looks to have evolved (pun intended! ) past the OP, but I felt the need to throw in my two cents.

No, it shows the universe had a beginning, that the matter that was seen was the matter used to create. The universe is not infinite as it was once believed.

It was not just one Christian Astrophysicist that believed what he said there were atheistic Astrophysicists that agreed it was an argument for God.

 

[edthecynic]

Ah ha,you got me or did you.

I did use google and i was waiting for your response. The first problem with your evidence is,many scientists believe, but not all, that hardly sounds convincing.

Let me give you an example.

Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years.

New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. But even then the researchers themselves questioned the accuracy of the dating technique

Oldest Human Fossils Identified

MADRID, Spain — A small piece of jawbone unearthed in a cave in Spain is the oldest known fossil of a human ancestor in Europe and suggests that people lived on the continent much earlier than previously believed, scientists say.

The researchers said the fossil found last year at Atapuerca in northern Spain, along with stone tools and animal bones, is up to 1.3 million years old. That would be 500,000 years older than remains from a 1997 find that prompted the naming of a new species: Homo antecessor, or Pioneer Man, possibly a common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern humans.

Oldest known human fossil found - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia

By Frank Gaglioti
25 July 2003

A team of 45 scientists from 14 different countries led by Professor Tim White from Berkeley University has uncovered and assembled three fossilised skulls from Ethiopia that provide the oldest record of modern humans. The fossils give strong support to what is known as the Out of Africa theory: that humans first evolved in Africa and then migrated to other regions and ultimately the entire globe.

The landmark discovery was made public in the scientific journal Nature on June 12. The find was made in 1997 in an arid valley close to the Middle Awash River near the village of Herto, 225 kilometres northeast of Addis Ababa. The three skulls—two adults and one child—were so fragmented that it took five years to piece them together and were dated at 160,000 years old using the Argon-Argon method. The dating was quite precise as the fossils were found between two layers of volcanic ash.

Oldest modern human fossil discovered in Ethiopia


So which one can we trust ? I told you i don't trust the dating methods.

Well, take the youngest date 130,000 years ago. A day would still be much less than 20 hours.

I guess you missed the point, there are a big discrepancies in the dates.

If you want and support that as evidence so be it,but you're are just using opinions that are not reliable or proven. It definately don't prove you right and me wrong.

Actually, there is not much difference in the ages of the fossils if you pay attention to which ones are human ancestors and which ones are modern humans.

Do you accept that apes existed when days were shorter than 20 hours?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You know what? I've really tried to avoid these "scientific Proof" arguments... but I just want to say something.

To me, it shows a lack of faith on the Christians' part to be constantly trying to prove something. I believe with my heart, not my head. I believe simply because I do. I don't need to justify my faith to anyone. If someone else does not believe, it's no skin off my nose. I'll simply pray for them to someday come to God. But it has to be their epiphany, their choice. I, nor anyone else can FORCE them to come to God.

I don't need to prove anything,it just reinforces what i believe,but you could say that about evolutionist because look how many of them are here verses, well ,me.

And if we don't show the threasons to doubt the theory our children rebell against God. Would you not wish to save the children that are headed down the wrong road ?