It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.  They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory. You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works. You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it? The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways: For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design. Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this: “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.” The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night. In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes. But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree. If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place. So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself. By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:
I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.  Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above. Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted. Did I hit you too hard? Is that all you got after I debunked what was left of your proof? Because you debunked cause and effect yourself, I debunked the rest. You also said there is no method that can prove God so thanks again for debunking yourself. My talk above is exactly the same as your machine-like ''argument'' or the Cosmological argument which is a classic argument creationists use. https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunkedYou assume the first cause, motor, etc... is God, which is that, only an assumption, there is no evidence for it. You never explain what you mean by machines, then you say animals use machines like rocks and then you say machines that exist in nature are far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. So a rock is far more advanced than a TV by your understanding. Then you say, The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker. A wild assumption again but ok, however you do not stop there you also say it's God, another assumption with no evidence supporting it. God would like to have people of your strength of faith in His Kingdom. Surely God for whatever reason thinks faith is more important than logic, he also sends you to hell for not believing in him which makes total sense, he wants you to kill people if they work on the Sabbath (very moral god) and many more atrocities. |
|
|
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.” Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.” Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.” Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth. Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required. In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors. In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge. Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun" Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try "So everything you wrote has been debunked easily." If you really want to go this chaotic route, this covers not only the things that I wrote, but all the things that everyone wrote. Especially it covers your writing of it, itself. So, we are back to where we were before you wrote it. Of course, if you would rather stick with this idea that you wrote, you might as well admit evolution is a hoax, or at least, science fiction. You said that scientific laws can't be refuted and scientific theories are not laws therefore are bad and can be changed. I showed you that neither scientific laws or scientific theories are absolute. Science and scientists agree that nothing can really be proved 100% but we can definitely get close to it and as long as it works it's accepted. That's the most we can do. Evolution as I said previously has been used in many applications, maybe our understanding of evolution is not 100% accurate but it definitely works and can be applied to different areas, just like gravity, we can calculate gravity and apply it on different areas, maybe our understanding of it its not 100% accurate either but it works. Creationism does NOT, not a single application for it. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion. They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory. You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works. You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it? The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways: For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design. Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this: “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.” The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night. In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes. But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree. If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place. So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself. By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:
I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post. |
|
|
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.” Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.” Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.” Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth. Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required. In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors. In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge. Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun" Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion. They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory. You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument |
|
|
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion. They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion. They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. My points were clear, everything was taken in count and both your ''theories'' have been debunked, not by me but by any scientist that knows about evolution. What other reasoning a part from evolution theory can explain the same concepts, I would like to know. ''inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form'' Ok? So? There are billions of planets, sure it wasn't waiting around but it happened, obviously. ''Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts''. Yes it has because it's not random. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed, then maybe we are actually programmed, we are just a simulation, how can we tell? You obviously believe it's God for some reason, it might just as easily be a simulation. All of this by the way has nothing to do with evolution, the origin of the universe is another deal. Oh, chuckle de chuckle. Your clearest point was all the limiting words used. There wasn't a single thing in what you said that was positive. It all had limiting words. After all, the moon "could have" been made of green cheese that converted to rock shortly after the first modern telescopes were invented.  The limiting words were used by the scientists. Such wording shows that they are designing a guesswork idea in evolution. Our usage of the word "random" is different from the meaning of pure random. We use the word random regarding things we are ignorant about and can't determined directly, because of our weakness. There isn't any pure random. Cause and effect isn't maybe. Your "then maybe" is simply you trying to find something to take the place of your flawed evolution ideals. My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont. Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. My points were clear, everything was taken in count and both your ''theories'' have been debunked, not by me but by any scientist that knows about evolution. What other reasoning a part from evolution theory can explain the same concepts, I would like to know. ''inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form'' Ok? So? There are billions of planets, sure it wasn't waiting around but it happened, obviously. ''Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts''. Yes it has because it's not random. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed, then maybe we are actually programmed, we are just a simulation, how can we tell? You obviously believe it's God for some reason, it might just as easily be a simulation. All of this by the way has nothing to do with evolution, the origin of the universe is another deal. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. |
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols. You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know? Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists. But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact. Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake. However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time. Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most. As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake. Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down. Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake, you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake. Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit. Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science. All you need to do to see that cause and effect is complex far, far beyond understanding, is to examine the universe, even just a little. Some of the greatest complexity is in the human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence. All you need to do to see that the universe had a beginning is to understand that entropy would have reduced all complexity to simpleness long ago if things had always been, without a beginning. So, there definitely was a beginning. We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job. But we DO know by observing the universe, that whatever it was, it must have had some tremendous understanding, knowledge, and ability to be able to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence for thousands of years down through the ages, following the beginning. Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind. Welcome back to episode 7 of our masterful fool Badecker who keeps making more stupid statements as time goes by. We could say that the entropy of his stupidity is increasing and it will soon reach total entropy, but we can actually observe a decrease in his entropy because he is transporting his stupidity to his forum. Why? Because Badecker's brain is not an isolated system, his stupidity is allowed to flow on the internet, thus decreasing the entropy of his system's stupidity. In this episode, Badecker proudly presents us with his unheard, wonderful news: the universe had a beginning. Clap, clap, everyone, this one is as sharp as a bowling ball. I wonder if he found that by himself or maybe he was inspired by some scientific nobodies that studied, observed and proved that a long time ago. Anyway, let's get back to our subject who actually admits that 'We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job.' I mean, few people are so dumb to do anything to prove God exists and fuck everything up with only one true sentence. I almost lost my breath and I was ready to admit that Badecker is actually a smart guy if he would've stopped there. But he couldn't, because he is not a smart guy. The idiot went right ahead to tell us how the cause must have had knowledge, tremendous understanding and the, this one is magnificent, the ABILITY TO BE ABLE (ahahahahaha) to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion and intelligence for thousands of years through the ages, following the beginning. So, as all religious apologists believe, it's all about us. Fuck the rest of life on this planet, fuck the splendor and greatness of the universe, cause and effect is for us, it was all made for us so we can get out in the morning, take a shit, drink a coffee and sell hotdogs for the game. Also, you can see how Badecker believes human species have been around only for 'thousands' of years, because that's what the 'scientific proven' bible tells him. Of course he could research a bit and find out that we're talking about 6 million years, but those must be lies told from the scientist that refuse to prove God because they have an unknown issue...all of them, as Badecker believes. Let us all be good fellas and not tell Badecker the estimated age of the universe, he might have a heart attack. He ends his post by saying 'Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind.'...ain't that smart? We, the ones who could never understand God, could define him and describe him as the creator of the universe, the cause, but the problem is we do not have those abilities. Of course, the Bible only says that God is all knowing, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. It does not actually say that God had great knowledge of nuclear fusion, photons, entropy, etc. But let's assume they did not know about all of these and go straight to our description of the creator. He first created heaven (let us assume it's the universe) and earth. He then made day and night with the help of light...wait for it. Second day, God creates the sky. We shall assume they are talking about the atmosphere. God then goes on and makes land, water and plants. Fourth day, God creates the Sun, earth's primary source of light and after that, all the rest of the stars and planets in the universe. Smart guy, heh? You know why he did it? So men, the ones that were not yet created, could track time. That's it, that's their only purpose. Day five, God makes all the creatures that live underwater (all, including plants, he forgot some) and all of the birds (no insects, fuck the birds, they can starve) and he also blesses them. These were the first blessed living beings because fuck plants. Day six, God creates all of the other living beings and man. Man was special so he made him in his image after he talked himself into it (a bit psycho), blessed him and told him that all of that belongs to him and he must subdue it to rule over it. He also told that everything is good to eat, including plants. Later on, he changed his mind about the eating thing (not quite a perfect plan, right?). Seventh day, he went to rest and that is it. What Badecker does not understand is that we are not claiming we could have done it better (although I know some people who, if superpowers existed, would have), but if you observe the universe and if you also research about earth age and universe age, there is a huge inconsistency in God's story. The universe does not seem to have been created that way, earth was most surely not created in the same instant as the universe was, etc. So God has very little understanding of our universe he claims to have created. Why is that? Because the people who came up with the story had a very little understanding of the world that they were living in, because they actually did use the stars to measure time, they did not know light comes from the sun, they thought the sun and the moon are there to distinguish between day and night. So this is how our mentally challenged Badecker makes undocumented, dumb proofs again, making a fool out of himself. I know this got long and it is hard to read but it was a pleasure for me to prove the stupidity of our apologist. Stay tuned for episode 8, he won't stop as I can see.  Yes funny as usual. The people that wrote the bible were very ignorant. For example, they think the sky is heaven and it's something out of reach, we obviously know today that there is no heaven in the sky and it's just the atmosphere. If they knew at the time what the universe was, they would have written that God and heaven is far in the universe but of course they didn't. They also use very silly stories, for example, the babel tower to explain why there are different languages. People were building a tower with it's top in heaven and God decided to stop them and the best way of doing it is to make them speak different languages. If you don't think that's the stupidest shit ever I'm sorry for you. Perhaps god was angry again for some reason and turned some people into black people, asian and other races just because why not. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter: In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself. And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this. |
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols. You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know? Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists. But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact. Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake. However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time. Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most. As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake. Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down. Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake, you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake. Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit. Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science. All you need to do to see that cause and effect is complex far, far beyond understanding, is to examine the universe, even just a little. Some of the greatest complexity is in the human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence. All you need to do to see that the universe had a beginning is to understand that entropy would have reduced all complexity to simpleness long ago if things had always been, without a beginning. So, there definitely was a beginning. We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job. But we DO know by observing the universe, that whatever it was, it must have had some tremendous understanding, knowledge, and ability to be able to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence for thousands of years down through the ages, following the beginning. Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind. Let's say I agree with all you said, such ability is also found in descriptions of the Greek mythology or the Quran or many other religions. What I asked, and you seem to be avoiding the question over and over, is how do you know which God it is because if it's not the God from the Bible and it is the God from the Islam you will go to hell for believing in the wrong God, so I'm going to ask you again, how can you be certain that your God is the real God, do you have any evidence at all? Don't avoid the question again. The title topic is about the scientific proof that God exists. The answer to your question is easy and straight forward. The true God is the God that science proves to exist. The real God may be worshiped in one or many religions, as well. Or He may not. My opinions and ideas about which, if any, religion worships the scientifically proven God, are not part of this topic. And, they are private until such a time that I want to express them. The real God is the one that science proves exists... as I have shown at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. EDIT: Thanks for telling us that Greeks, Islam and other religions have scientific proof for the existence of God. I have never seen such proof in religions. Would you be kind enough to point out where the Greeks express the scientific proof that God exists? You said describing, the Bible does not have any scientific proof for the existence of God either, those links you keep posting are supposedly the proof of God, the bible does not have them. What you said is that the bible contains descriptions of a God and so does the greek mythology and any other religion. Your links do not prove directly that there is a God, you said yourself that everything is programmed, right? How about this, maybe we live in a program simulation, that's what your evidence also points out to, maybe we are simply a simulation and that's why everything is programmed. You don't want to express your ideas because you have none. You worship the God from the Bible because that's how you were brought up to believe. You have literally 0 evidence or proof to demonstrate that the god from the bible is in fact the real God and you choose to believe it. You try to be scientific but then when it comes to the Bible you don't even know what to say. You also said in other posts that science proves the records in the bible are true and honest, you didn't respond to that either. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. |
|
|
|
I see they haven't done A THING to change their "probably fair" system
in short: you can't see what is the seed if you do not check BEFORE you roll i.e. you have to click on the tab
if you do not-system KNOWS you haven't checked the seeds and is free to put anything that it likes
how often do you check every roll you take beforehand?
I would not go as far as to call them open scam,but their provably fair is not fair at all
Not completely true. It doesn't show your your seed unless you click on the provably fair tab FOR THE FIRST TIME. Once you've clicked on it ONCE, it will continue to show your seed after every bet. You don't need to request your server seed hash every time you log in either. If you've clicked it once since creating your account, your server seed hash is When betting from the API, like dicebot does, Each bet result returns the server seed hash of the next bet, you never need to request the server seed except directly after logging in. Edit: Scratch that, you don't even need to click on the button for the seed hash to display. The seed hash will automatically display after your first bet. You literally only need to click the seed hash button for your first bet with that account. To be honest they were shady but I used to play there and I won close to 2 btc, I don't know if it was luck or they just let some people win but personally I can't say they are cheating, although they might. At this point they don't gain anything from cheating anyways. I do think they boosted their stats about bets. |
|
|
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. |
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols. You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know? Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists. But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact. Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake. However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time. Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most. As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake. Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down. Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake, you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake. Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit. Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science. All you need to do to see that cause and effect is complex far, far beyond understanding, is to examine the universe, even just a little. Some of the greatest complexity is in the human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence. All you need to do to see that the universe had a beginning is to understand that entropy would have reduced all complexity to simpleness long ago if things had always been, without a beginning. So, there definitely was a beginning. We don't have a clue regarding what it was that caused the universe to begin, or how it did the job. But we DO know by observing the universe, that whatever it was, it must have had some tremendous understanding, knowledge, and ability to be able to make cause and effect to maintain the form of human mind, brain, emotion, and intelligence for thousands of years down through the ages, following the beginning. Such ability is found in the descriptions of God in our definitions of God. But it certainly isn't found in mankind. Let's say I agree with all you said, such ability is also found in descriptions of the Greek mythology or the Quran or many other religions. What I asked, and you seem to be avoiding the question over and over, is how do you know which God it is because if it's not the God from the Bible and it is the God from the Islam you will go to hell for believing in the wrong God, so I'm going to ask you again, how can you be certain that your God is the real God, do you have any evidence at all? Don't avoid the question again. |
|
|
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often. Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true? Why should You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.
My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses. Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it. EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution. How does science show that the records in the Bible are honest and true? Enlighten us. You keep fucking talking about theories when I already explained to you what a scientific theory means, at this point I don't know if you are stupid or trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryThrough scientific investigation of everything surrounding the coming-into-being of the Bible as it is, we see that the Bible is a miraculous work. In other words, God, Who is scientifically proven to exist, is the One Who "built" the Bible. And God is entirely factual... does not lie. Your explanation of what scientific theory is, destroys itself. If scientific theories were any more than guesstimations... that is, if they were fact... the science community would long ago have stopped calling them theories, and started calling them scientific laws or scientific principles. So, the scientific community destroys your explanation. Anybody who believes as you do, is just as deluded as you are. Now that we know that science theory believers are believing in something not proven, we see that they are religious in their belief. They have made science theory into religion for themselves. This includes all who believe in a faulty Wikipedia article. Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. What we see is the bible having tons of mistakes as shown here: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.htmlhttps://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.htmlThe word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts: Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless. Links: Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Isaak, Mark. 1995. Five major misconceptions about evolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
