Oh? Another BADecker explaining that science is not scientific?  Science is true. The way that people use science causes science to become religion in many of them. That's part of the reason why you can believe something that you don't understand in science is true. Somebody else told you it is true. But you don't really know. You just believe them, like the religious person believes his priest. If a priest told someone that gravity is not real, the person, if he is ignorant enough, just might believe the priest. Then he goes out and uses gravity all day long in his work. Gravity is truth. The explanations of what makes gravity work like it does - theories - might not be true. Both are science. And both are wonderful science. But the moment that someone says that the explanation of why and how gravity works is truth - the theory - if he is merely hypothesizing, then he has made part of science into a religion for himself and all who believe him.  |
|
|
|
...
Probably. Well to be fair we don't have the same system, USA can hardly apply a rule over the whole country as it's divided into states with some power whereas in France you can set and apply a law everywhere in a few months at most.
But again I was not talking about anything else but my opinion on the subject.
I think you get pushback because you say (well, essentially) "I'd control you," and people respond "Hell, no you won't." Lol...no big deal... Meh, as far as I know all I ever said is "gun control is better" and I maintain my position, gun control is really better. But I'm not going to impose it in the USA, I don't how I could even do that xD And after all, you're free to kill yourself, I've got no problem with that, I'll just not go live in the USA that's all ^^ Well, then pray that gun control is not exercised in America. IF guns are ever removed from Americans, there will be nothing stopping the power elite from making slaves of the whole world, you included. |
|
|
|
...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.
Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists? When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like: http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something.  |
|
|
|
...
P.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia...
The guy is confused by "all these theories". He needs one truth: God exist because it exist. All science is just theories. Religitards reject all scientific facts and theories that contradict their "Goat Herding Manual - Adventures of the 1st century herdsman." aka the Bible. I'm starting to like your posts a lot. You a good buddy, talking all this, but never contradicting the scientific laws that prove God exists. |
|
|
|
even charles darwin was believe that god exist
Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinThough reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft AtheistP.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia... It's kinda funny that jokers like you who want to believe that the fiction of science theory is truth don't even understand that you have a religion going in it. |
|
|
|
There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum. Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well. Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability. Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing. DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!! For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities! It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!! From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities! Can't you see the difference??? I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way. The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability. But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox . 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!! Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application. "In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory." http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theoryOkay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying. Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something. Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee. Ahahah xD I think you'll kill us of frustration xD Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different. "Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something." Notice how it's the same thing for everything else. You're talking about laws but you're the only one. The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law! Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law. In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum. In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false. Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law. For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law. All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time. Combining these proves the existence of God. If the theory is too complicated for you it does not mean that is not valid. It just means that you don't understand it. I think the biggest issue you have is with the word theory. You don't understand how scientific theories are established and what they mean. Theory is not the same as story. Quite the opposite. I am well aware of how some scientists have twisted the word "theory" to suggest that if the theory is strong enough, it is truth, even when it is not known to be truth. However, the laws still remain laws. This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do. |
|
|
|
The cancer of calling science theory fact, is more subtle and penetrating even than the cancer of Islam. |
|
|
|
...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.
There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...
That is why paying attention in biology class pays off. I have two questions for you: Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please? Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please? I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it. If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time. These are not necessarily yes or no questions. We are considered mammalian by many. Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given. You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics? Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask! The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence. LOL! Ok how do you interprete the fact that we got all those similarities with Chimpanze? When you look at the fossil record, there are even more, that are extinct today. Yet none of them is a crossover. Each of them are distinct in their DNA, with no DNA showing both of them. In fact, when you try adding DNA from one group to another, the added DNA is gradually "weeded out" of their system in their descendents. This is another great evidence for the fact that God made all the various kinds of plants and animals to be their own distinct species. Wtf are you even talking about? That's totally wrong! DNA is deeply shared between species! We even have 45% of DNA of common with a banana >< You have missed some of what we have been saying cross-thread. Sameness in DNA is more like 97%. But the parts that distinctly determine a species, never cross over to another species. However, this talk about DNA is going away from much of what we were originally talking about... that it is frustration with atheist stupidity that Christians mostly have. It only looks like hate. Yeah frustration of atheist even if YOU'RE the one talking about it in the first place... And that's dumb of saying that what is nto common... Is not common.... That's obvious! The parts of DNA that are unique of one specie are... Unique for one specie! Here is your logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-natureHey, thanks man. I am not going to look up your site, because I don't really want to get into an argument about DNA and such. This website is not about DNA but about all the logical falacies that your explanations contain... You should look it up... The thing that I am right about is that science proves that God exists, through cause and effect, combined with a complex universe, combined with universal entropy. |
|
|
|
... Some people suggest that neanderthals are simply very aged humans. Since our understanding of the age of the earth is really only theoretical, we don't really know when neanderthals walked the earth. Since evolution flow is entirely theoretical, there is really no clarity that we had a common ancestry with either neanderthals or chimpanzees. More than likely neanderthals were a form of early human before some of the genetics died out of people. See http://www.jackcuozzo.com/. So much nonsense in your post that I don't even know were to begin. Neanderthals were one of the human subspecies within the same genus (Homo) as Homo Sapiens. What do you mean age of earth is theoretical? You mean it is an estimation. The fact is that is is approx. 4.5 Billion years old. Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeanderthalThere is no evolution flow, I think you mean evolutionary tree. It is not theoretical, it is backed by data and archaeological artifacts. Neanderthals lived in small bands of 50-150 people who knew each other very well. Homo Sapiens invented myths which helped to organize into larger bands. Having common myth or God allowed for co-operation between strangers. Gods/Myths united strangers behind a common goal (to serve the same God for example) So their bands were larger, few thousand by some accounts. Neanderthals were killed off by Sapiens. They were no match to a large number of smart, small ape bands. Some Neanderthals cross bread with Sapiens as the two subspecies met. That is why some of us have more Neanderthal DNA and features than others. (This guy kinda looks like one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Valuev) I suggest you think before you post. This is not your church where you can spout any nonsense you like. You are wrong about evolution. The fact of universal cause and effect shows that everything is pre-programmed by Something. This changes how you and science generally understand evolution entirely. |
|
|
|
There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum. Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well. Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability. Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing. DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!! For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities! It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!! From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities! Can't you see the difference??? I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way. The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability. But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!! Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application. "In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory." http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theoryOkay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying. Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something. Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee. Ahahah xD I think you'll kill us of frustration xD Brian Cox had 60 seconds in your video and COULD NOT separate the theory and the application. He didn't talk about the quantum theory but about what we're using it for, which is different. "Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something." Notice how it's the same thing for everything else. You're talking about laws but you're the only one. The worldwide scientific community is talking about entropy theory, not entropy law! Scientists separate the theory (the whole explanation) and the law (precise part of the explanation) because one theory is most of the time composed of many laws! That's absolutely not hos you use the word law. In the case of quantum, when you get down to the tiniest of tiny, there is no separation of theory and application. In fact, that is the whole idea of quantum. In the scheme of things, a scientific law might be found to be false. The fact of the law is that many people have found it to be true in many ways, but nobody has found it to be false. Theory, on the other hand, fits all the other possibilities that are outside of law. For example, cause and effect/action and reaction is law because it exists in everything that everyone works with and understands. Science might come up with a theory that suggests that cause and effect is wrong, but if they do, it is complicated enough that nobody can say for certain that it can not be contradicted. So, it remains theory. and the law remains law. All this is simply you and me talking about stuff. Cause and effect, at least in the form that Newton expressed it in his 3rd Law, has never been contradicted successfully. And you certainly aren't going to tell me that the universe is not complex. And at its base and core, entropy simply explained is the dispersal and diffusing of all complexity into its simplest form throughout all space and time. Combining these proves the existence of God. |
|
|
|
... And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?
My guess is BADecker thinks Jesus and Moses will drop down from heaven and Mohammed will fly down on his white horse and the three will do the Armageddon thing. My money is Mohammed. He will chop Moses head off in no time and make Jesus his bitch. The two will live happily forever, fucking each other five times a day (in the direction of Mecca of course). Long before entropy will have come close to being complete, Jesus will come with His Heavenly Hosts, send the devil and Mohammad to Hell, and you along with them if you will not turn and accept Jesus as your Savior. See I was right. I can read his tiny brain like an open book. What is really amazing is that somebody as intelligent as you can be so right about me and so wrong about God. Again, you are assuming that I'm wrong about God. I fail to see any scientific (or any other) evidence of any God. One of us is right. The other, well, is delusional. No need of proof. He just give 3 "laws" of physics while ignoring the other hundreds of them then give it to you as a proof. Same thing as flat earth believers ^^ The other hundreds mostly don't apply. The few that do, also confirm the existence of God. Some of you jokers just don't like reality. Why not? |
|
|
|
...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.
There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...
That is why paying attention in biology class pays off. I have two questions for you: Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please? Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please? I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it. If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time. These are not necessarily yes or no questions. We are considered mammalian by many. Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given. You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics? Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask! The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence. LOL! Ok how do you interprete the fact that we got all those similarities with Chimpanze? When you look at the fossil record, there are even more, that are extinct today. Yet none of them is a crossover. Each of them are distinct in their DNA, with no DNA showing both of them. In fact, when you try adding DNA from one group to another, the added DNA is gradually "weeded out" of their system in their descendents. This is another great evidence for the fact that God made all the various kinds of plants and animals to be their own distinct species. Wtf are you even talking about? That's totally wrong! DNA is deeply shared between species! We even have 45% of DNA of common with a banana >< You have missed some of what we have been saying cross-thread. Sameness in DNA is more like 97%. But the parts that distinctly determine a species, never cross over to another species. However, this talk about DNA is going away from much of what we were originally talking about... that it is frustration with atheist stupidity that Christians mostly have. It only looks like hate. Yeah frustration of atheist even if YOU'RE the one talking about it in the first place... And that's dumb of saying that what is nto common... Is not common.... That's obvious! The parts of DNA that are unique of one specie are... Unique for one specie! Here is your logical fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-natureHey, thanks man. I am not going to look up your site, because I don't really want to get into an argument about DNA and such. |
|
|
|
There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum. Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well. Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability. Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing. DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!! For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities! It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!! From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities! Can't you see the difference??? I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way. The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability. But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.Yeah sure listen to the 60 seconds of Brian Cox where he can explain correctly for sure!!! Here is an article summing up the thing correctly. And please next time you try to get a point give a REAL proof, not the only time where a scientist had so little time (60 seconds IS short) he couldn't make the distinction between the theory and the application. "In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented his quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that energy existed in individual units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave - as had been formerly assumed - and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question. The existence of these units became the first assumption of quantum theory." http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/quantum-theoryOkay. I don't work with quantum theory. And I don't want to get into it. But Brian Cox is accepted worldwide. So probably, if you carry what Max Planck was doing to its limit, you would wind up with what Brian Cox is saying. Notice one thing about this whole quantum area. It is right in the site address you listed above. It is quantum THEORY. When you have one science theory trying to prove another science theory, you are writing a science fiction story. If either of them happened to be a law of science, then you might have something. Science theory is based on probability. Quantum theory is, therefore, the theory of theories. Probability fits this description to a tee. |
|
|
|
There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum. Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well. Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability. Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing. DAMN YOU'RE SO IRRITATING!!!!!!!!!!!! For the last fucking time: Quantum theory is NOT probabilities! It's a very precise and simple explanation of how the world works!!! From THIS explanation, we can conclude that any observation on a very tiny little part of our universe (nanoscale) is IMPOSSIBLE because when it gets too small the only thing you can get are probabilities! Can't you see the difference??? I am not trying to be irritating or to upset you in any way. The fact that quantum is probability is not my idea. It is the idea of scientists that work with quantum. However, tiny is what quantum is all about. And your explanation of tiny becoming probability is probably correct, except where you say that it is impossible. In fact, this is exactly what quantum is all about... tininess that gets so small that all that is left of it is probability. But don't take my word for it. Listen to Brian Cox .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo. |
|
|
|
They don't give a fuck. They don't want to see the truth they just want reasons to accuse the Arabs and Muslims of everything. That's all they want because they're too dumb to see the big picture ^^ Since science has proven that God exists, nobody can get rid of religion. We need religion to find out more about God than the simple fact that He exists. Since the stupidity and misunderstanding of science by Badecker, he thinks he's proven something while it's flawed as hell. Well, that's where you are mistaken. I am not trying to prove anything. Nor do I think that I am trying to prove anything. All I am doing is showing you folks how science proves that God exists. Scientific proof for God is self-evident once you see the science involved. What I think is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.
There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...
That is why paying attention in biology class pays off. I have two questions for you: Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please? Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please? I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it. If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time. These are not necessarily yes or no questions. We are considered mammalian by many. Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees.Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given. You mean apart from genetics and physical caracteristics? Well what do you want as proofs. We've got all the evidence you need you just have to ask! The evidence can be interpreted in other ways. Because of this, it is not really evidence. LOL! Ok how do you interprete the fact that we got all those similarities with Chimpanze? When you look at the fossil record, there are even more, that are extinct today. Yet none of them is a crossover. Each of them are distinct in their DNA, with no DNA showing both of them. In fact, when you try adding DNA from one group to another, the added DNA is gradually "weeded out" of their system in their descendents. This is another great evidence for the fact that God made all the various kinds of plants and animals to be their own distinct species. Wtf are you even talking about? That's totally wrong! DNA is deeply shared between species! We even have 45% of DNA of common with a banana >< You have missed some of what we have been saying cross-thread. Sameness in DNA is more like 97%. But the parts that distinctly determine a species, never cross over to another species. However, this talk about DNA is going away from much of what we were originally talking about... that it is frustration with atheist stupidity that Christians mostly have. It only looks like hate. |
|
|
|
Yes I agree. God exists.
In your head.
This makes me very happy. Now that you understand that God exists, please start formulating some theories that we can use to prove some of His attributes. I will, as soon as you learn how to read and not skip the critical points. I know, I know. Since you don't even know how to attempt to disprove scientific points and laws scientifically, how could I really expect you to formulate any scientific theories? Silly me. But, of course, I was just teasing. However, nice to know that you finally understand that God exists, scientifically. You're talking about science? You consider the best and most precise theory in the history of mankind as a lesser theory that theories of gravity which were proven wrong already (by wrong I mean not perfectly and exactly right) I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying that I consider. I really don't want to get into even talking about the strength of this or that theory. The thing that I am really saying is that science law proves God exists. |
|
|
|
Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.
Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God: 1. Cause and effect; 2. Complex universe; 3. Universal entropy. Again we're coming back to that... How are those three laws proven for you? Why those particular aspects of science seem true for you? Because those laws are proven with less precision than quantum physics right now... These three laws are and have been proven for me just like they have for you. They are proven by science. And the fact that they have been proven is that they are called laws, not theories. Quantum anything is theory. This means that it has not been proven. This means that it is not law. Google it. That's where you're wrong. Those laws you're talking about are proven by experiment. The precision of those experiment are roughly at the 14th decimal. The experiment proving the quantum theory are precise and proving it at something like the 21th decimal. So quantum theory, or quantum law, is proven better than the others! Checkmate. There is a whole little section that you are missing in this. Quantum, being probability, is always only probability. Probability can be very precise, depending on how much probability a scientist wants to put into it. The interesting thing about probability is, you can prove anything with quantum. Let's say that you set out to use quantum to prove that evolution is true. You could do it. At the same time, let's say that the scientist in the next room set out to prove that evolution could never happen because of cause and effect. He could do it as well. Quantum can prove anything, even very precisely. Quantum can even be used to prove the likelihood of evolution to be higher or lower, depending on the way the scientists uses quantum. At the same time, the scientist next door can use quantum to prove various levels of evolution improbability. Essentially, quantum gives a scientist direction for testing his ideas and theories, and the encouragement to not give up until he has proven that his ideas are true or false... proven through other methods than quantum/probability, since probability alone proves nothing. |
|
|
|
Yes I agree. God exists.
In your head.
This makes me very happy. Now that you understand that God exists, please start formulating some theories that we can use to prove some of His attributes. I will, as soon as you learn how to read and not skip the critical points. I know, I know. Since you don't even know how to attempt to disprove scientific points and laws scientifically, how could I really expect you to formulate any scientific theories? Silly me. But, of course, I was just teasing. However, nice to know that you finally understand that God exists, scientifically. |
|
|
|
...
Or take a car for example. The car is complex. But the people who made it are way more complex.
There are so extremely many of examples of less complexity coming from greater complexity, and no examples of greater complexity coming from lesser complexity, that this is a law of the universe... at least until someone proves it wrong. They need to start by finding even one example.
...
That is why paying attention in biology class pays off. I have two questions for you: Do you know we are mammals? yes or no, please? Do you know that we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? yes or no, please? I'm assuming you acknowledge the evolution since you are claiming God programmed it. If you accept that live evolves from simpler live forms, you accept that life becomes more complex over time. These are not necessarily yes or no questions. We are considered mammalian by many. Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees. Life changes in some ways. The definition of evolve or evolution has only been assumed so far, but has not been given. "We are considered mammalian by many." "Nobody has scientific proof that we have common ancestry with chimpanzees." Have you payed any attention at your biology class? did you even bother to go to school? No one can be this dense, this stupid and blind. Maybe if you're in some cult and brainwashed, but if that's not the case.... then boy, you have some problems. The things of science that talk about evolution are scientific theory. Cause and effect is basic scientific law. Scientific law trumps scientific theory. Cause and effect show that evolution is simply pre-programmed changes... pre-programmed to happen, by God, Who has been proven by science to exist. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
