Scientific proof that God exists?

[Decksperiment]

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty?  Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly.  This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

I call it deliberately misleading people.
Telling people you have proof when you don't is not "getting the info across", it's just lying.

At last.. another member not afraid to see the end of the bad United State's of Arseholes, never mind them canadian wankers.. the catholic ones of course..

What does canada have in common with the irish.. the irish got fucked by the catholic preist's.. the canadians got fucked by Vod, Oyo, and lest we forget, the pope BADicker..

Catholic's of course

[Decksperiment]

What happens when the pope dies? Up pope's another alias of VOD, YOYO, (forever goin up n down on pole's) and the highness BADIcker...

[Decksperiment]

By not believing you are god, he cannot exist.. the christian god is not THE god YOU should be.. but YOU cant be, because YOU think Science is seperate from YOU. YOU are your world, and your diety, HE/SHE is what you make YOU out to be.. Tis not a question of self 'image' actualization, but self actualisation of the diety you are, that those who know you, KNOW you are..

[the joint]

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty?  Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly.  This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

When I make mistakes, I am only acting like everyone else. At least I am willing to admit that we make mistakes.

One area that I am not making very many, if any, mistakes in is, the evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that prove that God exists. The scientist in the joint should be able to recognize this.

Responding in order:

1)  It's not getting the info across.  You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.  

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

2)  This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well.  That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility.   Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.  

Please leave me and "we" out of it.  You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

[Joshuar]

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Doesn't talk about God at all. Even if the times are correct here (we don't know that they are because laws of physics of the distant past may have been different), this only suggests that God did it differently than the religions say.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

This author, himself, agrees that God exists when he says at the bottom of http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html:

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

While the Big Bang has not been proven to absolutely have not happened, the current descriptions and times that modern science applies to Big Bang happenings, have been shown to be wrong by electric cosmos information. See http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Science and astronomy have made tremendous strides in knowledge about the universe over the last hundred years. Most of the knowledge is a hodge podge of pasting new findings into old. This process has turned the whole understanding of astronomy and cosmology into a complete mess, even though astronomers are ashamed to admit it... ashamed that they could have been so bold as to believe all those silly cosmology assertions of former astronomers and cosmologists. The evidence for this is found at http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm and the pages following. Follow the thinking in Internet searches for "electric cosmos," and you will see how it is gradually replacing current popular understandings about the universe, simply because it makes way more sense.

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

You can keep on setting yourself against God for awhile, by believing that He doesn't exist. Yet, some of the most important and basic evidences that prove God exists are found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Proofs against god:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

You can keep believing in your thing but there are the solid proofs against god

There are no proofs against God in the common methods for finding evidence that proves something. The evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are scientific evidences that scientists use everyday to prove aspects of nature and the universe around us. These evidences also prove the existence of God.

The religion of atheism has become strong these days. And I don't understand why. Why are people who are out to find the truth (or so they say) so adamantly against one of the basic truths of the universe, that God exists? Accepting the fact of the existence God doesn't hurt them at all. They can still go on being good (or bad, in some cases) scientists.

Personally, I think it is a political ploy, pushed by the super rich, to mix up the common people, so that they can control the world more easily.

A couple questions:

1) In your view, what is the difference, if any, between evidence and proof?

2) In your view, does "proof" always equate to 100% certainty?  Why or why not?

Depends. He can change the definitions around to suit the situation. That way he gives the illusion his arguments have substance.

I know, he butchers and tortures the English language repeatedly.  This is basically me experimenting with various approaches to see if he responds differently to any of them.

There's a part of me that likes to believe that 'nobody' who is capable of living on their own is that stupid, and that he knows when he signs off his account that he's dead wrong on so many things, but simply can't admit it because he's already invested so much time and energy trying to cast a certain impression (i.e. that he's super-duper smart and nobody except him understands the awesomeness of his logic...you know, because faith and stuff).

It's called getting the info across.

When I make mistakes, I am only acting like everyone else. At least I am willing to admit that we make mistakes.

One area that I am not making very many, if any, mistakes in is, the evidences at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that prove that God exists. The scientist in the joint should be able to recognize this.

Responding in order:

1)  It's not getting the info across.  You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence. 

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

2)  This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well.  That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility.   Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes. 

Please leave me and "we" out of it.  You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close. 

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Perfectly said.

[Decksperiment]

Wrong.. the bible has been proven debunked by the FACT That pinus longavea at 5064 years old, and still alive, and hence witness to the FACT the flood did not take place.. and hence the bible is croc.. no? Prove me wrong? No-one on planet earth can, FACT. God has nothing to do with the bible, FACT.

Please, since you, like every other person in the vod scam ring, seem intent on hiding this very MASSIVE fact.. by filling this thread full of un-related bullshit.. Just to hide MY proof.

Cause it takes away their reason for living.. you'd profit more from the donations you'd receive if you sold them a noose, save's them suffering

Edit:

That's no to above, I missed the quote..


Anything else they say is purely to hide my evidence in a thread full of little kiddie left-overs..

And the world knows it..

Ps, the Pinus Longavea is older than stonhenge!!!!

Because jesus, a human, went to stonehenge, and yes, there is a record of his two visit's there

[Joshuar]

Wrong.. the bible has been proven debunked by the FACT That pinus longavea at 5064 years old, and still alive, and hence witness to the FACT the flood did not take place.. and hence the bible is croc.. no? Prove me wrong? No-one on planet earth can, FACT. God has nothing to do with the bible, FACT.

Please, since you, like every other person in the vod scam ring, seem intent on hiding this very MASSIVE fact.. by filling this thread full of un-related bullshit.. Just to hide MY proof.

Cause it takes away their reason for living.. you'd profit more from the donations you'd receive if you sold them a noose, save's them suffering

Edit:

That's no to above, I missed the quote..


Anything else they say is purely to hide my evidence in a thread full of little kiddie left-overs..

And the world knows it..

"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"

"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"

There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.

[Decksperiment]

Sea grass would survive a flood, just like the fish; and bacteria would survive being trapped in stone.

Nice point's though

[Decksperiment]

People should see the truth.. BaDICKer is ATTACKING anyone with the bible, because we think different from him, his assault on the OP's thread has clearly gone beyond trolling, and the only way he could get away with trolling for this length of time, (over 30 posts containing same link, most only need one link) is if he is either an admin, or paid $50 dollar's or more.. but the bible, and god's house, is free, should god exist.. yes, there are rules, and he's broken every one of them.

[BADecker]

Responding in order:

1)  It's not getting the info across.  You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.  

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

So you're debating!?

2)  This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well.  That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility.   Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.  

Please leave me and "we" out of it.  You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists.

[Joshuar]

Responding in order:

1)  It's not getting the info across.  You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.  

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

So you're debating!?

2)  This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well.  That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility.   Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.  

Please leave me and "we" out of it.  You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists.

I'm thinking that BADecker has been simply trolling the entire time. If you don't understand BADecker, just say so.

The joint is saying that you cannot prove God's existence and vice versa, through science. It is impossible, and he is correct.

[BADecker]

...

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close. 

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Perfectly said.

...

"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"

"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"

There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.

Now you, yourself, are spouting a bunch of unprovable junk... by your own admission. Or do you have a real, working, time viewer?

[BADecker]

Responding in order:

1)  It's not getting the info across.  You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.  

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

So you're debating!?

2)  This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well.  That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility.   Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.  

Please leave me and "we" out of it.  You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists.

I'm not thinking that BADecker has been simply trolling the entire time. If you don't understand BADecker, just say so.

The joint is saying that you cannot prove God's existence and vice versa, through science. It is impossible, and he is correct.

All this time the joint and you have been thinking that I have been trying to prove (or something like prove) the stuff at the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ?  All I have been doing is providing information about the evidence that scientists use on a regular basis to prove that God exists.

[hughsjack]

if god exists, whats up with Leucochloridium paradoxum, Ampulex compressa, Cymothoa exigua, Loa loa, Dracunculus, Cordyceps fungi, Wolbachia, Vandellia cirrhosa, Toxoplasma gondii and Sacculina. Just google it. and as Stephen Fry says if god exists he is “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous”

I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

[BADecker]

if god exists, whats up with Leucochloridium paradoxum, Ampulex compressa, Cymothoa exigua, Loa loa, Dracunculus, Cordyceps fungi, Wolbachia, Vandellia cirrhosa, Toxoplasma gondii and Sacculina. Just google it. and as Stephen Fry says if god exists he is “utterly evil, capricious and monstrous”

I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

I don't know about this stuff (highlighted) that I am aware of. Perhaps I will look it up someday. I DO, on occasion, take cordyceps as a nutritional supplement.

I don't know much about bone canser in children or adults. If I did, I would have spelled the word correctly.

If you are trying to ask me why there are problems in the world, the real fast, simple answer is this. God, for His own purposes and for our glory and best benefit gave us free will. Our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, used their free will to listen to the devil rather than to God. The result was spiritual imperfection in at least the world, if not the whole universe, and genetic imperfection in themselves and all who inherit their genes. The imperfection wasn't God's doing. It was theirs. However, if we were perfect right this instant, would that stop us from making mistakes that would throw us right back into the same problems that we have now?



EDIT: I enjoy your handle.  

[Buffer Overflow]

Watching BADecker trying to dig himself out of that hole he dug, is like watching a train crash in slow motion.

[the joint]

Responding in order:

1)  It's not getting the info across.  You've described the information there in three distinct ways -- by your own description, the information there is proof, evidence but not proof, and information that points to evidence.  

Is that how you're trying to win the debate, by making your position *every* position so that, no matter what is said, you're always correct?

So you're debating!?

2)  This is hilariously weird, but it fits the nature of your posts very well.  That is, when you make a mistake you are more than happy to make it everyone's responsibility.   Super, super weird that you write that you are willing to admit that "we" make mistakes.  

Please leave me and "we" out of it.  You are responsible for your own logical mistakes.

Generally I don't do the "we" thing. But since so many people express the human race as one in their posts, for the sake of brevity and information flow, I have been doing the "we" thing. Now, all of a sudden, you want to leave yourself outside of the human race. Who do you think you are, God (rhetorical)?

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists.

I'm not thinking that BADecker has been simply trolling the entire time. If you don't understand BADecker, just say so.

The joint is saying that you cannot prove God's existence and vice versa, through science. It is impossible, and he is correct.

All this time the joint and you have been thinking that I have been trying to prove (or something like prove) the stuff at the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ?  All I have been doing is providing information about the evidence that scientists use on a regular basis to prove that God exists.

Responding in order:

1) Yes, I'm debating.  I wish you would.

2) There is no such thing as a human "race."  We are human species.  Race does not exist, it's a social construct and has absolutely no genetic basis.

3) How the hell did you confuse my desire to not be responsible for your idiotic thinking with a desire to be removed from humanity?!   ...Seriously...what the hell?

4) No. The point is that nobody knows what you're thinking because you claim one thing at the same time that you claim the exact opposite, and also at the same time you claim something irrelevant.

What happens is that you say something, we call you out on it, them you change your claim to something else.  When we call you out on the new claim, you switch it again to something else.  This makes it impossible to make sense of anything you say, because everything you say contradicts everything else you said, and will be contradicted itself by whatever you're going to say in the future.

5). *You* said that the information you linked was proof of God's existence.  Then you said it wasn't.  If you tell us that it is "proof," then duh, we think that's what you're trying to do...because you *told* us.

6). Scientists *never* use evidence to prove God exists, because it's *impossible.*  How can you not understand this simple concept?

[Buffer Overflow]

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Thank you for explaining the precise reason that Big Bang, age of the universe, evolution-produces-life, black holes, dark matter and energy, parallel universes, chaos, and quantum anything, are all theories.

The point remains. The evidence expressed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 is proof that God exists.

Strawman.
The joint never said anything about Big bang, black holes etc... being theories or not.

Your "proof" was challenged and you had no defense
Not even a weak defense. Nothing, zilch, zero.

[Decksperiment]

Watching BADecker trying to dig himself out of that hole he dug, is like watching a train crash in slow motion.

It's even funnier knowin I laid the track's of the journey he has to take, based on the fact he cant just shut the fuck up when he should, never mind provide proof of anything other than the fact I STUCK him on said tracks

Ps, count how many thread's i have never read, that these wimp's try to hijack by bringing my name into it, how fuckin sad.. just as well it's them doing the following, or they'd have no god to think about when they go to sleep.. yeah you know they aint thinkin o god, they're thinkin o me..

Prayin for me to stop, 'cause they been shagged into not stopping, they like the last word, even if it does come from their creamy white n brown lips..

[Joshuar]

...

3)  The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.  

Remember again that:

a)  Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b)  By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c)  Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.

So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.

Quit calling that garbage "proof."

Perfectly said.

...

"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"

"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"

There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.

Now you, yourself, are spouting a bunch of unprovable junk... by your own admission. Or do you have a real, working, time viewer?

So you admit that you are ignorant and uneducated in these fields. Please go work or study the field of archaeology, botany, and biology, then you'd answer your own illogical question.