Scientific proof that God exists?

[IadixDev]

You keep saying all the proof is out there but you give me none. You said cows making cows is proof and then that you have proof but it is for yourself. You don't have proof, you were indoctrinated by your parents or family to believe in the bible just like 99% of religious people and you never tried to challenge those beliefs.

What proof do you have for anything that you say ? None either. Doesnt prevent you to insult everyone, make bold statement and pretend it's absolute truth , science, and yadda yadda.

None of my familly believe in the bible, if anything that proove how you are just full of a priori, and make bold statement without proof or anything just based on a priori on things you have zero clue about.

Stop pretending you are a scientist.

You are just indoctrinated to hate religion.

"We know that God exists because mathematics is consistent and we know that the devil exists because we cannot prove the consistency." -- Andre Weil

[BADecker]

Science is more intellectual process than based on sensorial perception, facts etc.

Intellectual process is sensorial perception of what is guessed to be other sensorial perception.

It's not perception of physical objects though

Philo of alexandria make the connection with the mind of god as the logos, as source of truth.

Plato speak of realm of idea similar to this.

Many says the concept of haeven in the bible is the same than those concept of realm of idea of Plato,  and mind of god of philo.

All perception that we know about, is perception at least THROUGH physical objects. The brain and nervous system are physical objects. And even thought that is entirely brain-contained is through the physical brain.

However, I as many others, believe that there is a non-physical aspect of the mind that science does not know about. I believe that we still think, even if there is no brain, and even if the energies that we understand do not exist.

This is something for science of the future to explain. But it may be something that is not explainable. So far, science has only been able to explain a few things of nature clearly... compared with what exists to be explained.

Perception through physical object doesnt mean perception of physical objects.

It's same with cpu and programs, even if execution of program is physics/electronics, the validity or correctness of the program is not seen physically.

But the physical object, and the computer program, are thought about physically, because the thought process includes a bunch of electrical impulses that run around the physical nerves inside the brain.

[BADecker]

You keep saying all the proof is out there but you give me none. You said cows making cows is proof and then that you have proof but it is for yourself. You don't have proof, you were indoctrinated by your parents or family to believe in the bible just like 99% of religious people and you never tried to challenge those beliefs.

You don't have proof of your personal death, either, because it doesn't exist while you are alive, and you don't know anything after you are dead... not even about your death.

[Przemax]

You keep saying all the proof is out there but you give me none. You said cows making cows is proof and then that you have proof but it is for yourself. You don't have proof, you were indoctrinated by your parents or family to believe in the bible just like 99% of religious people and you never tried to challenge those beliefs.

If I may speak for myself. Oh yeah. I had challanged it. Firstly I believed very strongly in good making as a child. Then I saw very early that noone - literally noone is taking a gospel message seriously. So I had felt ashamed and became an atheist like you. Later on I was fascinated with Dawkins. I was thinking Im superiour to all those silly hipocritical believers.

Then I saw its all bs as well. None of the "science man" is actually treating it seriously. They are a hypocritical just like all of the rest.

Later on I had found that its a deliberate and planned action for people to be classified as herds. Of believers, nonbelievers and labels this or that. Like they would be some form of animals that need to be social engineered.

So then, after a long time, I realised I have been duped by the society to believe, that I have to belong in some herd. If you are free from the need of belonging you can actually explore your own humanity, some ideas that people are not willing to because that would mean they do not longer belong to their herd.

The words of Christ are real. The herd that is being led is led to their slaughter. A slaughter of soul. We need all we can to stop that.

Society is far from being free from myths. Like all primitive societies our myths are our "realities". Your "scientific" reality is just a variation of a myth of Cargo, described by Baudrillard.

In essence you have things that you take for granted. They are a supermarket stuff. And on one shelf you have "scientific documentaries on discovery channel". You are not interested how that is made, if that meat is actualy a meat. You just take it for granted that in some magical way some cargo culture will spoon feed with all you need. Its a MALL CULTURE and you are fine example of one such a guy.

You are asking us to spoon feed you and you expect it to be in the form of a supermarket product. Packaged as a science by some mister package guy, errr I mean doctor. It need to be certified because thats the rules of this silly mythical society.

Its a deeply ingrained in many myths society that claims its mythless. For me thats a peak of hipocrisy.

[Astargath]

You keep saying all the proof is out there but you give me none. You said cows making cows is proof and then that you have proof but it is for yourself. You don't have proof, you were indoctrinated by your parents or family to believe in the bible just like 99% of religious people and you never tried to challenge those beliefs.

If I may speak for myself. Oh yeah. I had challanged it. Firstly I believed very strongly in good making as a child. Then I saw very early that noone - literally noone is taking a gospel message seriously. So I had felt ashamed and became an atheist like you. Later on I was fascinated with Dawkins. I was thinking Im superiour to all those silly hipocritical believers.

Then I saw its all bs as well. None of the "science man" is actually treating it seriously. They are a hypocritical just like all of the rest.

Later on I had found that its a deliberate and planned action for people to be classified as herds. Of believers, nonbelievers and labels this or that. Like they would be some form of animals that need to be social engineered.

So then, after a long time, I realised I have been duped by the society to believe, that I have to belong in some herd. If you are free from the need of belonging you can actually explore your own humanity, some ideas that people are not willing to because that would mean they do not longer belong to their herd.

The words of Christ are real. The herd that is being led is led to their slaughter. A slaughter of soul. We need all we can to stop that.

Society is far from being free from myths. Like all primitive societies our myths are our "realities". Your "scientific" reality is just a variation of a myth of Cargo, described by Baudrillard.

In essence you have things that you take for granted. They are a supermarket stuff. And on one shelf you have "scientific documentaries on discovery channel". You are not interested how that is made, if that meat is actualy a meat. You just take it for granted that in some magical way some cargo culture will spoon feed with all you need. Its a MALL CULTURE and you are fine example of one such a guy.

You are asking us to spoon feed you and you expect it to be in the form of a supermarket product. Packaged as a science by some mister package guy, errr I mean doctor. It need to be certified because thats the rules of this silly mythical society.

Its a deeply ingrained in many myths society that claims its mythless. For me thats a peak of hipocrisy.

Exactly what I was talking about, rambling rambling and more rambling yet you have no proof for your beliefs. I gave you mine, Yes I do believe in evolution and perhaps the big bang but I also gave you a lot of evidence for it, it might be wrong but it's still a lot of evidence. You have none, you can only quote the bible and come up with a silly ''proof'' of god, ''cows make cows''

I look at the evidence and I try to interpret it to the best of my knowledge. If a god exists and he wants to torture me forever because I didn't believe in him even though I was using the logic and reasoning he gave me then he is either evil, doesn't exist or is fucking retarded.

[Przemax]

You keep saying all the proof is out there but you give me none. You said cows making cows is proof and then that you have proof but it is for yourself. You don't have proof, you were indoctrinated by your parents or family to believe in the bible just like 99% of religious people and you never tried to challenge those beliefs.

If I may speak for myself. Oh yeah. I had challanged it. Firstly I believed very strongly in good making as a child. Then I saw very early that noone - literally noone is taking a gospel message seriously. So I had felt ashamed and became an atheist like you. Later on I was fascinated with Dawkins. I was thinking Im superiour to all those silly hipocritical believers.

Then I saw its all bs as well. None of the "science man" is actually treating it seriously. They are a hypocritical just like all of the rest.

Later on I had found that its a deliberate and planned action for people to be classified as herds. Of believers, nonbelievers and labels this or that. Like they would be some form of animals that need to be social engineered.

So then, after a long time, I realised I have been duped by the society to believe, that I have to belong in some herd. If you are free from the need of belonging you can actually explore your own humanity, some ideas that people are not willing to because that would mean they do not longer belong to their herd.

The words of Christ are real. The herd that is being led is led to their slaughter. A slaughter of soul. We need all we can to stop that.

Society is far from being free from myths. Like all primitive societies our myths are our "realities". Your "scientific" reality is just a variation of a myth of Cargo, described by Baudrillard.

In essence you have things that you take for granted. They are a supermarket stuff. And on one shelf you have "scientific documentaries on discovery channel". You are not interested how that is made, if that meat is actualy a meat. You just take it for granted that in some magical way some cargo culture will spoon feed with all you need. Its a MALL CULTURE and you are fine example of one such a guy.

You are asking us to spoon feed you and you expect it to be in the form of a supermarket product. Packaged as a science by some mister package guy, errr I mean doctor. It need to be certified because thats the rules of this silly mythical society.

Its a deeply ingrained in many myths society that claims its mythless. For me thats a peak of hipocrisy.

Exactly what I was talking about, rambling rambling and more rambling yet you have no proof for your beliefs. I gave you mine, Yes I do believe in evolution and perhaps the big bang but I also gave you a lot of evidence for it, it might be wrong but it's still a lot of evidence. You have none, you can only quote the bible and come up with a silly ''proof'' of god, ''cows make cows''

I look at the evidence and I try to interpret it to the best of my knowledge. If a god exists and he wants to torture me forever because I didn't believe in him even though I was using the logic and reasoning he gave me then he is either evil, doesn't exist or is fucking retarded.

You had gave me "evidences" That I and others have shown that they might as well be an "evidences" for creationism. I agree some things are facts. But just because they are facts, does not mean they prove your position. Can you read with understanding?

The difference between me and you is that I have higher intelectual standards and I am aware those "evidences" are weak. Either for evolution or creation. Let me remind you what was your possition and what was mine because you have clearly low memory:

Quote
Discovering Dna

Complication of dna is rather a disprove of evolution at best. Its nowhere near to be a proof.

Quote
finding transitional fossils

You do not need to wait millions of years to create fossils. You need a catastrophy. Like a global flood for example.

By the way. Its circular logic. Biologists reffers to geologist and geologist to biologists without checking validity of claims. Babilonian logic I say. Complicate things more, maybe you will build a tower to the sky of this absurd.

Quote
matching traits to common ancestors

Thats not science. Its a priori.

Quote
observing evolution over short timescales like the peppered moth but there are other examples worth pointing out

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Yes peppered moth came from its kind a moth, not a banana given enough of time to pass. Sorry being mocking. Its asking for it.

Quote
Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains

Disease are there to help us gain health not for us to get away from them. Toxicity is the origin of disease. Do you think a bacteria is a danger to healthy individual? Pasteur even said that bacteria is nothing, the enviroment is everything.
Medicine right now is finding the benefit of having parasites. You have completly outdated informations my friend. Science is leaving your position to more enlighted one. We start to see the nature is not our enemy and not everyone try to kill us.

Quote
Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides

There could be some form of natural selection of those. I fully agree. That does not prove evolution that God is wrong what he says. But its not a mutation per se. Its a variation within a specie. Most of those variation can reverse. And it could be that young rats are activating their fenotypes within a genome, within a contact with a toxin.

Quote
That's blind faith to you?

Yes, because I have said it does not disprove this:

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Quote
Real testable evidence, do you have any?

Yes, there is no animal that does not aply to this:

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Quote
Of course you don't

Yes I do. Look up.

 

I don't think you understood why I was quotting the bible. I was quotting the bible, because you have no proof that is wrong, and everyday life is a proof its correct.

To prove your claim you need to give some counter argument which you had failed to do.

Thank you for giving me the evidences for creationism. If you want to talk to me you need to explain few things:

1. Explain complexity of dna counter to simplicity of evolution.
2. Explain the catastrophic genesis of fossils. Why biologists are not verifying geologist and vice versa. Why do they use circular logic? Circular logic should be the enemy of scientific enquiry. By the way, what does bodily remains prove other than - the body died? Nothing. And all of the evidences is gathered by one organisation that is of low reputation. Smithsonians.
3. Why there is a beneficial effects of parasites on human health?
4. Why do we have fenotypes and not only genotypes.
5. Find an example of a specie creation that we could verify scientificly
6. Why are your classification not verifiable scientificly?
7. Why species are being extinct in ennourmous pace, yet no new specie was born. Don't tell me dingo its just a reverse engineered new race of a dog. Hows that we do not see new stars, yet we see stars dying day by day.

For all those questions there is a way simplier more fit to the Ockham (btw the guy was correct that the papal seat is the antichrist written in John revelation) razor answers like:

1. Because our creator is complex. He gave his footprint in our dna. Its not like 90% or so of dna is useless - its a footprint of God finger. It sound unscientific? Because you have an allergy to the word God.

In 2012, scientists with the ENCODE project, a huge catalog of all noncoding DNA in the human genome, declared that 80 percent of our DNA was active and performing some function. Now scientists at Oxford have analyzed the human genome and claim that less than 10 percent of our DNA is functional.

Btw how is that a not a compromitation of evolution that the closest specie to our dna is a pig, not a chimpansee. How did that happen? Was our ancestor a pig, not a monkey? Hows dna not disprove evolution?

Are we canibalistic monsters eating our brothers in evolution? Yikes.

2. The biologist does not verify geologist because they would lose grands if proven wrong. Money talks.
3. Becuase everything is made of love. The recent medical discoveries is showing this that illness is the process of getting rid of toxins, by the sweat and other bodily fluids. Cancer is just a process of avoiding getting ill and die from toxemity. There are tons of scientific works including etology proves that the species that are "evil" had extinct because they does not belong to the "love theme".
4. Because we are made to adapt to our enviroment, by the benevolence. Otherwise free will would not be possible.
5. They had not found it and they will not find it. Why? Because its a hoax.
6. Look at point 5.
7. The law of entropy.

I had told you that, yet I would not want my point of view to be taught in public schools. Its not evidenced enough to influence young minds. Your point of view is not evidenced as well, yet you lie it does.

I agree with the undeniable fact that there are a variations within a species. But you must a agree as well that its unfactual that there is made a variation outside of a specie. That had not happened anywhere. Its just nonfactual nonsense proving evolution is nonfactual at best. Maybe they are not conciously fraudsters so I should not name them such.

[Astargath]

The peppered moth was an example of evolution that we actually observed: http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

[Przemax]

The peppered moth was an example of evolution that we actually observed: http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

Its an example of natural selection and in the best case micro evolution (within a specie). I don't deny that is a fact. What I argue is that macro evolution is proven false.

Are you imply that peppered moth that is white is different specie than black? Are you stoned or something?



Even if those silly evolutionist claim something is different specie - Thats a phony definition of specie. Before the XX century everyone had used the word specie as a kind.

A kind is an organism that can reproduce within its kind.

I totally agree there can be varieties within a kind. I have told you many examples how evolution is stupid and how science disprove its claims, what you can only do, is to play a silly word games with me.

You are hopeless... End of subject.

[Astargath]

The peppered moth was an example of evolution that we actually observed: http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

Its an example of natural selection and in the best case micro evolution (within a specie). I don't deny that is a fact. What I argue is that macro evolution is proven false.

Are you imply that peppered moth that is white is different specie than black? Are you stoned or something?



Even if those silly evolutionist claim something is different specie - Thats a phony definition of specie. Before the XX century everyone had used the word specie as a kind.

A kind is an organism that can reproduce within its kind.

I totally agree there can be varieties within a kind. I have told you many examples how evolution is stupid and how science disprove its claims, what you can only do, is to play a silly word games with me.

You are hopeless... End of subject.

Yeah, that's why virtually all scientists that use science agree with evolution because science disproves evolution, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

Why is it that 99.9% of people that are against evolution are also religious? Think about that for a second.

[Przemax]

The peppered moth was an example of evolution that we actually observed: http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

Its an example of natural selection and in the best case micro evolution (within a specie). I don't deny that is a fact. What I argue is that macro evolution is proven false.

Are you imply that peppered moth that is white is different specie than black? Are you stoned or something?



Even if those silly evolutionist claim something is different specie - Thats a phony definition of specie. Before the XX century everyone had used the word specie as a kind.

A kind is an organism that can reproduce within its kind.

I totally agree there can be varieties within a kind. I have told you many examples how evolution is stupid and how science disprove its claims, what you can only do, is to play a silly word games with me.

You are hopeless... End of subject.

Yeah, that's why virtually all scientists that use science agree with evolution because science disproves evolution, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

To have a grand you have to be compliant. Its such a world, that if you would not agree with someone, that make you say you believe in something, otherwise you are finished. What you would do if they would destroy your career, if you would say you believe in evolution if creationism would be the only game in town? If some scientist would say they believe in creation, smithsonians would destroy their life. No wonder scientists are silent about their believes.

Its a world where, if scientist have an enemy, this enemy, or enemies can easily destroy his life. Its very bad climate for truth. Its no wonder scientists does not want to make enemies and are deeply compliant.

You should think about it - this world is of satan. There are frauds upon frauds upon frauds upon hipocrisy with a cherry of idiocy on top of it. Do you not feel something is wrong with the world? Does the world not disgust you?

If liars have no arguments they start to discourage people by making people think they are just a minority. Pasteur was a minority as well when he was making his statements about the child deaths in hospitals.

The truth is the truth. It does not mean nothing to me if truth is in minority or if its in majority. Not at all.

Why is it that 99.9% of people that are against evolution are also religious? Think about that for a second.

Not so. Not even 25% of religious people takes Bible literally. I would say not even 5% religious people had read their bible, so what do they have to take literally? They are not aware of anything. More than 50% of christians are catholics, and catholic church aprove evolution.

Why 99.9% Adulterers and liars are against God? Think about that for a second.

[Astargath]

The peppered moth was an example of evolution that we actually observed: http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html

Its an example of natural selection and in the best case micro evolution (within a specie). I don't deny that is a fact. What I argue is that macro evolution is proven false.

Are you imply that peppered moth that is white is different specie than black? Are you stoned or something?



Even if those silly evolutionist claim something is different specie - Thats a phony definition of specie. Before the XX century everyone had used the word specie as a kind.

A kind is an organism that can reproduce within its kind.

I totally agree there can be varieties within a kind. I have told you many examples how evolution is stupid and how science disprove its claims, what you can only do, is to play a silly word games with me.

You are hopeless... End of subject.

Yeah, that's why virtually all scientists that use science agree with evolution because science disproves evolution, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

To have a grand you have to be compliant. Its such a world, that if you would not agree with someone, that make you say you believe in something, otherwise you are finished. What you would do if they would destroy your career, if you would say you believe in evolution if creationism would be the only game in town? If some scientist would say they believe in creation, smithsonians would destroy their life. No wonder scientists are silent about their believes.

Its a world where, if scientist have an enemy, this enemy, or enemies can easily destroy his life. Its very bad climate for truth. Its no wonder scientists does not want to make enemies and are deeply compliant.

You should think about it - this world is of satan. There are frauds upon frauds upon frauds upon hipocrisy with a cherry of idiocy on top of it. Do you not feel something is wrong with the world? Does the world not disgust you?

If liars have no arguments they start to discourage people by making people think they are just a minority. Pasteur was a minority as well when he was making his statements about the child deaths in hospitals.

The truth is the truth. It does not mean nothing to me if truth is in minority or if its in majority. Not at all.

Why is it that 99.9% of people that are against evolution are also religious? Think about that for a second.

Not so. Not even 25% of religious people takes Bible literally. I would say not even 5% religious people had read their bible, so what do they have to take literally? They are not aware of anything. More than 50% of christians are catholics, and catholic church aprove evolution.

Why 99.9% Adulterers and liars are against God? Think about that for a second.

Of course, you say scientists believe in creationism but they don't say it, they do, there are a few but that's it. Scientists understand evolution and use it. There are plenty of applications for it. You live in a magic world. Religion, god, they are all useless. No applications, no real life implications just mystical talk. As I said, religious people go to hospitals instead of praying, what does that say?

[Przemax]

Scientists understand evolution and use it. There are plenty of applications for it.

Like what?

You live in a magic world. Religion, god, they are all useless.

If not puritans you would not have science, just silly alchemist talk of balance and shit. Just because I am a believer, does not mean I do not know a science. I know muuuuuuuch more about science than you do. Evolution is not science.

I do not believe in miracles ok? Im not a catholic. I think there are some things we do not understand yet, but they could be explained scientificly. Placebo is a healing by faith. Even medicine admits the faith heals - its the placebo effect. There are a lot of things especially in medicine the doctors have no idea about.

No applications, no real life implications just mystical talk.

Bible is antimystical.

As I said, religious people go to hospitals instead of praying, what does that say?

Oh give me a break... And atheist are praying if they are dying. What is your point. People are doing things out of fear. Someone fear that they might die - they go to hospital. If they know they will die they ask for priest.

I advise you to read the book medical nemesis by I. Illich. Do not worry he was a former catholic priest and an atheist, he was not a believer. The guy had balls. He was not medicated for cancer at age 57 and he had died peacefully cancerless at the age 76 proving his point. Medicine would have killed him.

You should know that medicine had killed a lot more people than it is claimed, and a lot more people than it cured.

You have not explained why science has anything to do with religion. I had explained that if not a particular religion, you probably would not have science in the first place.

Give me just one explanation why you think science and religions are one or another(being exclusive) and not a separate entities like I claim they are.

You have a complete blackout in public education of information, that anything good has come out of reformation in church, while everything that was good came out of it. Counter reformation (jesuits) would make you think its everything else but the reformation that is good. They lie.

If not the reformation movement aka Puritans and Hussites, that was backed by the Bible, you could not even claim you are an atheist in public. Catholic church (the antichristos the word anti means replacing not the opposite) would have pierced your eyes and boiled you alive.

Every non christian religion would kill you where you stand, or torture you first if you would claim anything bad about them. You can be an atheist because of Christ mercy. Think about it.

[Astargath]

Scientists understand evolution and use it. There are plenty of applications for it.

Like what?

You live in a magic world. Religion, god, they are all useless.

If not puritans you would not have science, just silly alchemist talk of balance and shit. Just because I am a believer, does not mean I do not know a science. I know muuuuuuuch more about science than you do. Evolution is not science.

I do not believe in miracles ok? Im not a catholic. I think there are some things we do not understand yet, but they could be explained scientificly. Placebo is a healing by faith. Even medicine admits the faith heals - its the placebo effect. There are a lot of things especially in medicine the doctors have no idea about.

No applications, no real life implications just mystical talk.

Bible is antimystical.

As I said, religious people go to hospitals instead of praying, what does that say?

Oh give me a break... And atheist are praying if they are dying. What is your point. People are doing things out of fear. Someone fear that they might die - they go to hospital. If they know they will die they ask for priest.

I advise you to read the book medical nemesis by I. Illich. Do not worry he was a former catholic priest and an atheist, he was not a believer. The guy had balls. He was not medicated for cancer at age 57 and he had died peacefully cancerless at the age 76 proving his point. Medicine would have killed him.

You should know that medicine had killed a lot more people than it is claimed, and a lot more people than it cured.

You have not explained why science has anything to do with religion. I had explained that if not a particular religion, you probably would not have science in the first place.

Give me just one explanation why you think science and religions are one or another(being exclusive) and not a separate entities like I claim they are.

You have a complete blackout in public education of information, that anything good has come out of reformation in church, while everything that was good came out of it. Counter reformation (jesuits) would make you think its everything else but the reformation that is good. They lie.

If not the reformation movement aka Puritans and Hussites, that was backed by the Bible, you could not even claim you are an atheist in public. Catholic church (the antichristos the word anti means replacing not the opposite) would have pierced your eyes and boiled you alive.

Every non christian religion would kill you where you stand, or torture you first if you would claim anything bad about them. You can be an atheist because of Christ mercy. Think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

But lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, this thread is about proving god with science and you haven't done that.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

[Przemax]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

But lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, this thread is about proving god with science and you haven't done that.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true.

Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again.

All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously.

Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic?

Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science.

Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs.

And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary

You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point?

God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools.

You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye.

[Astargath]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

But lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, this thread is about proving god with science and you haven't done that.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true.

Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again.

All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously.

Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic?

Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science.

Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs.

And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary

You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point?

God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools.

You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye.

Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will''
''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe''

Your proofs are laughable at best.

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe

You can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao.

[BADecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

But lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, this thread is about proving god with science and you haven't done that.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true.

Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again.

All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously.

Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic?

Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science.

Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs.

And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary

You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point?

God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools.

You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye.

Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will''
''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe''

Your proofs are laughable at best.

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe

You can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao.

Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments.

But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever.

[Astargath]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

But lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, this thread is about proving god with science and you haven't done that.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true.

Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again.

All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously.

Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic?

Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science.

Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs.

And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary

You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point?

God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools.

You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye.

Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will''
''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe''

Your proofs are laughable at best.

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe

You can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao.

Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments.

But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever.

All your ''scientific'' arguments for the existence of god are simply circular logic arguments. That's all what religious nuts have. Science has disproved the god from the bible many many times.

[BADecker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

But lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, this thread is about proving god with science and you haven't done that.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The closest to the evolution "science" is the "science" of gender studies. They have their aplications as well. They have their langugae their 10th sexes and application how the 6th sex can feel sexy enough so that 7th won't offended. Just because something calls itself science and claim something does not mean its true.

Just because you use garbled pseudoscientific jargon that noone outside of guys that are interested in it understand does not mean its science. And the ones that are interested are the follow believers in evolution. Circular logic again.

All those applications are just hot air. I can't believe anyone is taking some of that circular logic seriously.

Evolution helps biology understand evolution. Are you sure thats implication rather than circular logic?

Selective breeding is not an evolution. Its just a selective breeding. Human are doing that for years. And if genetics are helping it, its not evolution science but genetic science.

Medicine. Again this article has mistake the science that is based on genetics with evolution. You know that I do not say that genes are not real? Do you? You cannot select genes based on evolution. If that would be the case the logical coclusion would be that we are the ancestors of pigs.

And yes micro evolution is not a macro evolution. I agree that micro evolution is factual. It does not prove that God is wrong or unnecessary

You cannot be serious about the evolution implication in IT. This is so stupid. I wonder who makes such an idiotic posts on wikipedia.

Oh and there are examples of new species: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

God had said that he set up a kinds that can breed with its kinds. Do you think that not keeping this usuful distinction of a specie - the only dychotomical sense of specie that it could have, that you will prove your point?

God had set up a rules. You have not made those rules obsolete. All you can do is mock them, play silly word games, pretend you do not understand, and play fools.

You are right. Thats dialog is offtopic. I had said my geographical, antropological, sociological, physical, biological and astrophysical observations in this topic. If you want to find them they are there. Bye.

Oh yea.. ''My proof of validity of God's word is that cow breed cow and thats what been and thats what will''
''Its not my fault that nowadays scientists are mainly a believers in mathematical scientism. There are many scientific evidences that gravity is electrical and we are living in the electric universe''

Your proofs are laughable at best.

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe

You can find a ton of articles debunking the pseudo science of the electric universe. Give me a break. You are just like badecker. All established science is wrong to you yet you use a ton of pseudo science to try to prove your points. you are a joke lmao.

Articles that try to debunk scientific proof for the existence of God, are simply circular logic arguments.

But that is all the anti-God scientists have. Scientific proof for God was shown way back at the time of Isaac Newton. It hasn't been debunked, ever. And the fact that it hasn't been debunked after hundreds of thousands of attempts to debunk it, proves that God science is stronger than ever.

All your ''scientific'' arguments for the existence of god are simply circular logic arguments. That's all what religious nuts have. Science has disproved the god from the bible many many times.

Cause and effect is science. Complexity is used by science all over the place. Entropy is scientifically accepted.

Together these three things prove that God has to exist. God isn't a "maybe."

[yourboss]

A VERY  INTERESTING  CONVERSATION
 
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem Science has with
GOD, the ALMIGHTY.  He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .     
 
Professor :    You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student    :     Yes, sir.
 
Professor :    So, you Believe in GOD ?
Student    :     Absolutely, sir.
 
Professor :    Is GOD Good ?
Student    :     Sure.
 
Professor :    Is GOD ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student    :     Yes.
 
Professor :    My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to  GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill.                    But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
 
(Student was silent )
 
Professor :   You can't answer, can you ?  Let's start again, Young Fella.  Is GOD Good?
Student    :    Yes.
 
Professor :   Is Satan good ?
Student    :    No.
 
Professor :   Where does Satan come from ?
Student    :    From . . . GOD . . .
 
Professor :   That's right.  Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student    :    Yes.
 
Professor :   Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student    :   Yes.
 
Professor :   So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer)
 
Professor :  Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they?
Student    :   Yes, sir.
 
Professor :  So, who Created them ?
(Student had no answer)
 
Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you. Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student    :   No, sir.
 
Professor   :  Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student    :     No , sir.
 
Professor :    Have you ever Felt your GOD, Tasted your GOD, Smelt your GOD?Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student    :    No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
 
Professor :   Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student    :    Yes.
 
Professor :  According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student    :   Nothing.  I only have my Faith.
 
Professor :  Yes, Faith.  And that is the Problem Science has.

(Here, the student begins to shoot back the professor.)
 
Student    :   Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor :  Yes.
 
Student    :   And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor  :  Yes.
 
Student   :    No, sir. There isn't.
 
(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )
 
Student    :   Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat,a Little Heat or No Heat.  But we don't have anything called Cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that.  There is no such thing as Cold. Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. We cannot Measure Cold. Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
 
(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )
 
Student    :  What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor :  Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?
 
Student    :  You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the Absence of Something You can have Low Light,  Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it? In reality, Darkness doesn't exist. If it does, would you be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?
Professor :   So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
 
Student   :   Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor :   Flawed ? Can you explain how?
 
Student    :   Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality.  You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.  Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor :   If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
 
Student    :   Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
 
(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )   
 
Student    :  Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor,                 Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
 
(The Class was in Uproar )
 
Student    :  Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?
 
(The Class broke out into Laughter )
 
Student    :  Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . . . No one appears to have done so.   So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir.  With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?
 
(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)
 
Professor :   I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student    :  That is it sir . . .  Exactly ! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving. 
That student was Albert Einstein.

[BADecker]

^^^ Are there really any posts in this thread?