Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

Well actually, you folks who are against the proof that God exists are delusional. Why? Many times I have shown the proofs. But nobody has come up with explanations of why the proofs don't "work."

You may not like the proofs. You may wish the proofs were not so. You may wish that God doesn't exist. But you haven't been able to show that He doesn't exist.

Come on. Do a scientific-like step-by-step rebuttal if you can. Pick even one point and do something more than just talk that it doesn't prove God. You can't, can you. All you can do is say that the proof isn't proof. Sounds like faith to me. You are trying to have faith that God doesn't exist, right in the face of the scientific proof that He DOES exist.

I already did, what you said about the complexity of the universe is false the entropy is always increasing not decreasing.

What did you already do? I said that entropy is increasing and that complexity is decreasing.

You said

''The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.''

What are the ''machines'' in nature?

The machines in nature are the whole way nature acts. Nature is full of "levers" and leverages, all working in great complexity in whatever happens in nature.

'' are produced by causes, whatever the causes may be. This means that the machinery of the universe, including mankind and his thinking, was designed by a Great First Cause, Which set everything in motion.''

This argument that was made really long ago is a loop, what was the cause for god then? And if your answer is something like: god has always been or has no cause the same answer can be applied to the universe

You never find anything that makes something to be part of the thing that it makes before it makes it. Same with God. Before He made nature, He wasn't part of it. So why would anyone think that He has to obey the laws of nature?

''The nations look for God.''

As time passes less and less people believe in God. Most respected scientists do not believe in God.

God doesn't respect the scientists that don't believe in God. God doesn't respect anyone who doesn't believe in Him. If a person is not respected by God, how does that hurt me? I respect god, and He respects me because of it.

You never find anything that makes something to be part of the thing that it makes before it makes it. Same with the universe

The difference is that there is no evidence that the universe makes anything. The universe simply operates with what it has. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There is no evidence that god makes anything either sorry.

Humans, animals, plants, all evolved, they were once very simple and they have evolved to become complex, God would have made us complex from the beginning besides humans are so badly designed, why would a God make humans so imperfect, he wouldn't.

Evolution. Fun theory. But all the evidence fits creation as well. And there is a ton of science law that says evolution is impossible. Time to get back from evolution science fiction to reality... creation.

God DID make us complex from the beginning. Entropy not only suggests devolution, but upholds it. Entropy... reverse evolution.

Did God make entropy? No! We did, by committing the first sin... doubting God.

God would not have made humans in the first place because he already knew what would happen, that makes literally no sense.
There is no science law that says evolution is impossible, that's pure bullshit, state one, there is not even a debate, virtually any scientist agrees that evolution is a fact.
God made us complex? I don't see God's complexity in humans, we can easily die, get sick, born with disabilities or illness, definitely a pretty bad job by God, don't you think?

[1714162015]

1714162015

[BADecker]

A new paper claims our understanding of gravity is totally wrong

A theoretical physicist has come up with a new hypothesis that could finally explain the mystery of dark matter - the elusive matter that's predicted to make up around 27 percent of the observable Universe.

According to the new paper, all we have to do to explain the weird effects of dark matter in the Universe is take gravity out of the equation.

"Our current ideas about space, time, and gravity urgently need to be re-thought. We have long known that Einstein's theory of gravity can not work with quantum mechanics", the author the new paper, Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam, told Dutch news site NOS.

"Our findings are drastically changing, and I think that we are on the eve of a scientific revolution."

The dark matter problem stems from the fact that there's more gravity in our Universe - especially in our galaxies - than can be produced by all the matter and gas that we see.

Traditionally, physicists have explained this inconsistency by assuming that there must be something else out there that we can't see, something dark - hence the name dark matter.

...

To come to this conclusion, he went back to the drawing board to figure out exactly how gravity forms on a microscopic level. His calculations suggest that gravity is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the entropy of the Universe.

Entropy is a property of thermodynamics that describes how much wasted energy there is in a system - or, more simply, how chaotic a system is.

You can also describe this is as how much information it takes to describe a system - generally, the more chaotic something is, the more information it takes to describe it, and the more entropy it has.

Faculty of Science - Erik Verlinde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynRVnIh6wq4


Read more and click the links at http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-paper-claims-our-understanding-of-gravity-is-totally-wrong.

[Astargath]

A new paper claims our understanding of gravity is totally wrong

A theoretical physicist has come up with a new hypothesis that could finally explain the mystery of dark matter - the elusive matter that's predicted to make up around 27 percent of the observable Universe.

According to the new paper, all we have to do to explain the weird effects of dark matter in the Universe is take gravity out of the equation.

"Our current ideas about space, time, and gravity urgently need to be re-thought. We have long known that Einstein's theory of gravity can not work with quantum mechanics", the author the new paper, Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam, told Dutch news site NOS.

"Our findings are drastically changing, and I think that we are on the eve of a scientific revolution."

The dark matter problem stems from the fact that there's more gravity in our Universe - especially in our galaxies - than can be produced by all the matter and gas that we see.

Traditionally, physicists have explained this inconsistency by assuming that there must be something else out there that we can't see, something dark - hence the name dark matter.

...

To come to this conclusion, he went back to the drawing board to figure out exactly how gravity forms on a microscopic level. His calculations suggest that gravity is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the entropy of the Universe.

Entropy is a property of thermodynamics that describes how much wasted energy there is in a system - or, more simply, how chaotic a system is.

You can also describe this is as how much information it takes to describe a system - generally, the more chaotic something is, the more information it takes to describe it, and the more entropy it has.

Faculty of Science - Erik Verlinde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynRVnIh6wq4


Read more and click the links at http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-paper-claims-our-understanding-of-gravity-is-totally-wrong.

''Claims'' However I don't care because gravity has nothing to do with evolution and he hasn't even proved his theory right yet and even in the link it says:

But it's important to note that it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so we need to take it with a big grain of salt.

Now can we talk about evolution?

[BADecker]

Well actually, you folks who are against the proof that God exists are delusional. Why? Many times I have shown the proofs. But nobody has come up with explanations of why the proofs don't "work."

You may not like the proofs. You may wish the proofs were not so. You may wish that God doesn't exist. But you haven't been able to show that He doesn't exist.

Come on. Do a scientific-like step-by-step rebuttal if you can. Pick even one point and do something more than just talk that it doesn't prove God. You can't, can you. All you can do is say that the proof isn't proof. Sounds like faith to me. You are trying to have faith that God doesn't exist, right in the face of the scientific proof that He DOES exist.

I already did, what you said about the complexity of the universe is false the entropy is always increasing not decreasing.

What did you already do? I said that entropy is increasing and that complexity is decreasing.

You said

''The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.''

What are the ''machines'' in nature?

The machines in nature are the whole way nature acts. Nature is full of "levers" and leverages, all working in great complexity in whatever happens in nature.

'' are produced by causes, whatever the causes may be. This means that the machinery of the universe, including mankind and his thinking, was designed by a Great First Cause, Which set everything in motion.''

This argument that was made really long ago is a loop, what was the cause for god then? And if your answer is something like: god has always been or has no cause the same answer can be applied to the universe

You never find anything that makes something to be part of the thing that it makes before it makes it. Same with God. Before He made nature, He wasn't part of it. So why would anyone think that He has to obey the laws of nature?

''The nations look for God.''

As time passes less and less people believe in God. Most respected scientists do not believe in God.

God doesn't respect the scientists that don't believe in God. God doesn't respect anyone who doesn't believe in Him. If a person is not respected by God, how does that hurt me? I respect god, and He respects me because of it.

You never find anything that makes something to be part of the thing that it makes before it makes it. Same with the universe

The difference is that there is no evidence that the universe makes anything. The universe simply operates with what it has. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There is no evidence that god makes anything either sorry.

Humans, animals, plants, all evolved, they were once very simple and they have evolved to become complex, God would have made us complex from the beginning besides humans are so badly designed, why would a God make humans so imperfect, he wouldn't.

Evolution. Fun theory. But all the evidence fits creation as well. And there is a ton of science law that says evolution is impossible. Time to get back from evolution science fiction to reality... creation.

God DID make us complex from the beginning. Entropy not only suggests devolution, but upholds it. Entropy... reverse evolution.

Did God make entropy? No! We did, by committing the first sin... doubting God.

God would not have made humans in the first place because he already knew what would happen, that makes literally no sense.

God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know." God made humans because of the thing that He wants humans to be. Those of us who accept God are people who are fulfilling what God wants for humans. Those who don't accept God, essentially don't exist - from God's viewpoint - even though they seem to exist for a while in this life.

There is no science law that says evolution is impossible, that's pure bullshit, state one, there is not even a debate, virtually any scientist agrees that evolution is a fact.

Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.

Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.

The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.

God made us complex? I don't see God's complexity in humans, we can easily die, get sick, born with disabilities or illness, definitely a pretty bad job by God, don't you think?

One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.

[BADecker]

A new paper claims our understanding of gravity is totally wrong

A theoretical physicist has come up with a new hypothesis that could finally explain the mystery of dark matter - the elusive matter that's predicted to make up around 27 percent of the observable Universe.

According to the new paper, all we have to do to explain the weird effects of dark matter in the Universe is take gravity out of the equation.

"Our current ideas about space, time, and gravity urgently need to be re-thought. We have long known that Einstein's theory of gravity can not work with quantum mechanics", the author the new paper, Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam, told Dutch news site NOS.

"Our findings are drastically changing, and I think that we are on the eve of a scientific revolution."

The dark matter problem stems from the fact that there's more gravity in our Universe - especially in our galaxies - than can be produced by all the matter and gas that we see.

Traditionally, physicists have explained this inconsistency by assuming that there must be something else out there that we can't see, something dark - hence the name dark matter.

...

To come to this conclusion, he went back to the drawing board to figure out exactly how gravity forms on a microscopic level. His calculations suggest that gravity is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the entropy of the Universe.

Entropy is a property of thermodynamics that describes how much wasted energy there is in a system - or, more simply, how chaotic a system is.

You can also describe this is as how much information it takes to describe a system - generally, the more chaotic something is, the more information it takes to describe it, and the more entropy it has.

Faculty of Science - Erik Verlinde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynRVnIh6wq4


Read more and click the links at http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-paper-claims-our-understanding-of-gravity-is-totally-wrong.

''Claims'' However I don't care because gravity has nothing to do with evolution and he hasn't even proved his theory right yet and even in the link it says:

But it's important to note that it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so we need to take it with a big grain of salt.

Now can we talk about evolution?

There are at least two evolution threads over in the Politics & Society section. Why do you want to be so off-topic here?

[Astargath]

Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.

Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.

The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.


False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''

Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong



One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.

How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''

Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.


God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know."

And how do you know what God knows? How do you know how he thinks and why are you trying to even speak on his behalf, If God existed and wanted us to believe in him he would have done so because he would know exactly what it takes to convince any human of his existence.

[Horacewoodwood]

Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
 

[BADecker]

Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.

Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.

The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.


False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]

This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''

This is simply bias in favor of a method that is considered by many to be scientific. What is that method? It is the method of blindly accepting what scientists in a particular field say, because "you" yourself are not in that field. This grows into accepting scientific magazine articles, no matter what they say, because everyone thinks that someone else has done the legwork. Thus, science magazines can get away with science fiction reporting, and scientists accept it, even if they don't believe it.

Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong

Wrong. Pretty much the universities and the media have portrayed the idea that most scientist accept evolution.

The simple, underlying, basic science fact of cause and effect, is stronger than most other science. It is basic science fact. When it is considered, even the idea of evolution is placed in a completely different light than is being pushed by the universities and the media.

One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.

How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''

Now you are saying that the complexity of nature is so great that we won't be able to figure it out.

The Hunzas, and several other groups of people, still live longer in the natural wild, than medical science allows us to live.

Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.

How long have we been doing these medical things? Less than 100 years. We had thousands of years to advance this far. It took that long. Complexity in the universe is tremendously great.

God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know."

And how do you know what God knows? How do you know how he thinks and why are you trying to even speak on his behalf, If God existed and wanted us to believe in him he would have done so because he would know exactly what it takes to convince any human of his existence.

Cause and effect alone show that God KNOWS way differently than we. God makes no mistakes. That's why even nuclear bombs can't break the laws of physics... physics that all operate through cause and effect.

Nobody knows like this except God.

[BADecker]

Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
 

Horacewoodwood is a religious fanatic. He comes to a science thread like this one, and all he can do is talk religion.

[qwik2learn]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Cases_Suggestive_of_Reincarnation

20 cases where the physical evidence is very hard to explain with the normal assumptions about death.

You would be surprised that I know of this book and also read a big part. The stories have been long discussed and there have been some main issues:

1. All of the cases are placed in India, a place where people believe in reincarnation. Most of the stories are quite uncommon, stories that could have been heard around. Children or parents living in an area where reincarnation is a belief could be looking for motives of making it seem real for them.

2. Even if the stories are right, they indeed are suggestive. We are talking about reincarnation, that is a huge discovery, you can not jump to a conclusion so fast. You need a bit more than this. So yes, I do not say it is a lie, it could very well be true, but we can not jump to a conclusion from 20 cases. However, even if one day we discover that reincarnation is true, that does not automatically lead to the proof of a God. Not by far.

I can not rebut the psychological part of this issue, I did not study psychology so my rebuttal is somehow skeptical concerning issue no 1 but I can not possibly say it could not be true, that is what I've said in issue no 2.

Yes I am surprised that you read it, good for you, I do think you need to read more from Dr. Ian Stevenson and those who follow up on his work. Reincarnation and Biology is a real topic and Dr. Stevenon wrote the book on that, the physical evidence indicates more than stories, cultural influence is not sufficient to explain all cases of the reincarnation type such as European cases. The next 40 points of evidence from AECES contains other historic events in parapsychological research, there is a lot of physical and documentary evidence in those cases too. The fact that these events are historical is confirmed by replication studies. These are more than stories, they are historically recorded events and can be reconstructed by a skilled researcher. Other intriguing examples of evidence comes from mediumship which has produced voluminous records of the encounter with the discarnate being, these records can be analyzed just like the spirit contact cases sumarized by AECES. I present to you the most convenient means of establishing the existence of mind existing without a body, so far I have 60 points and you have 1 invalid argument based on the falsified theory of cultural origin.

I fail to see why you've put together Reincarnation with Biology, but I'll let that go for a while. As for my argument, it is not invalid. My first point only talked about a possibility, a thing that Stevenson was also aware of in some cases. My second point says that the evidence is not compelling, it is not enough. Stevenson believed the same, he believed that all that he has done is find enough evidence so people can not say there is absolutely no evidence anymore, but he knew that it was not enough, there was way much more to this. As for the next evidence you are talking about, post a link and I'll look over it. You do not yet have 60 points, you have 1 case that we already talked about. I'm waiting for the links.

P.S.
What's with the link for skeptics, are you afraid I am unaware of how to bring critic to something? )

Reincarnation and Biology is a 2,000 page book by Dr. Stevenson, he wrote the book on this topic:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_and_Biology

I think that the quality and number of cases is compelling, a lot of great cases can be found on the AECES site:

Here you go:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body.

[qwik2learn]

Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.

Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.

The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.


False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''

Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong



One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.

How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''

Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.


God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know."

And how do you know what God knows? How do you know how he thinks and why are you trying to even speak on his behalf, If God existed and wanted us to believe in him he would have done so because he would know exactly what it takes to convince any human of his existence.

GOD does speak through his messengers. I found the Phoenix Journals in my research and my conclusion is that these texts do set forth the laws of GOD and creation in a simple and easily accessible manner. Mankind has free will to accept or reject these teachings, GOD can only offer in the spirit of love and goodness, but it is up to each one to test the material against one's own understanding.

[Horacewoodwood]

Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
 

Horacewoodwood is a religious fanatic. He comes to a science thread like this one, and all he can do is talk religion.

Where is the science here, I fail to find any. All I could find is an idiot who thinks he is a scientist but barely understands how and why he breathes. You are still full of shit and you have absolutely nothing to do with science. You are a religious fanatic who would do anything to make people believe God exists.

[Astargath]

Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.

Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.

The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.


False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]

This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists.


You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about?

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''

This is simply bias in favor of a method that is considered by many to be scientific. What is that method? It is the method of blindly accepting what scientists in a particular field say, because "you" yourself are not in that field. This grows into accepting scientific magazine articles, no matter what they say, because everyone thinks that someone else has done the legwork. Thus, science magazines can get away with science fiction reporting, and scientists accept it, even if they don't believe it.


Its the scientific method you dummy, that's how science is done lmao.

Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong

Wrong. Pretty much the universities and the media have portrayed the idea that most scientist accept evolution.

The simple, underlying, basic science fact of cause and effect, is stronger than most other science. It is basic science fact. When it is considered, even the idea of evolution is placed in a completely different light than is being pushed by the universities and the media.


Show me evidence that says scientists do not approve or support evolution because I can show you 100 links right now where it says that 99% of the scientific community supports evolution

One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.

How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''

Now you are saying that the complexity of nature is so great that we won't be able to figure it out.

The Hunzas, and several other groups of people, still live longer in the natural wild, than medical science allows us to live.

I searched it: ''The people of Hunza are by some noted for their exceptionally long life expectancy,[7] others describe this as a longevity narrative and cite a life expectancy of 53 years for men and 52 for women although with a high standard deviation.[8] In fact, not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented to indicate that the Hunza people have a life expectancy significantly above that of the average poor, isolated region of Pakistan. Writers who made bold claims about the health and long life of the Burusho almost always did so based solely on the words of the local Mir (king). The only author to have significant and sustained contact with the Burusho people was John Clark, who reported that they were a generally unhealthy people.[9]''

You keep mentioning things that are not proven at all.

Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.

How long have we been doing these medical things? Less than 100 years. We had thousands of years to advance this far. It took that long. Complexity in the universe is tremendously great.

So what if we had thousands of years, how do you determine it was long?

God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know."

And how do you know what God knows? How do you know how he thinks and why are you trying to even speak on his behalf, If God existed and wanted us to believe in him he would have done so because he would know exactly what it takes to convince any human of his existence.

Cause and effect alone show that God KNOWS way differently than we. God makes no mistakes. That's why even nuclear bombs can't break the laws of physics... physics that all operate through cause and effect.

Nobody knows like this except God.




Cause and effect doesn't show anything about god, you are just making conclusions for some reason

[BADecker]

Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.

Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.

The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.


False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]

This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists.


You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about?

The thing we were talking about is evolution. What are the odds that the atoms and molecules that make up a simple living cell could come together in just the right places to form what a living cell would be? The odds against this happening even once are literally impossible.

Add to this the proper motions for each and every atom and molecule so that the cell can be alive, and you have another big impossibility.

Add to this the fact that any "soup" that we can envision that would allow the above to happen, would immediately kill the new living cell. This means that the cell would have to be ejected from the soup at exactly the time it formed and became alive. This is another impossibility.

But, if the above happened, it would have to happen over and over each time there was an advancement in the cell, to the next level of evolution.

The probability math odds against this happening even once are so strong that it is impossible, and impossible, and impossible, beyond any chance of a possibility. Do the math.

[BADecker]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''

This is simply bias in favor of a method that is considered by many to be scientific. What is that method? It is the method of blindly accepting what scientists in a particular field say, because "you" yourself are not in that field. This grows into accepting scientific magazine articles, no matter what they say, because everyone thinks that someone else has done the legwork. Thus, science magazines can get away with science fiction reporting, and scientists accept it, even if they don't believe it.


Its the scientific method you dummy, that's how science is done lmao.

Hey, dummy. That's not how science is done. That's how scientists are duped by the universities and the media... just like everyone else.

[BADecker]

Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong

Wrong. Pretty much the universities and the media have portrayed the idea that most scientist accept evolution.

The simple, underlying, basic science fact of cause and effect, is stronger than most other science. It is basic science fact. When it is considered, even the idea of evolution is placed in a completely different light than is being pushed by the universities and the media.


Show me evidence that says scientists do not approve or support evolution because I can show you 100 links right now where it says that 99% of the scientific community supports evolution

Can't be done. Why not? Because there isn't any. All the reports are lies.

[BADecker]

One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.

How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''

Now you are saying that the complexity of nature is so great that we won't be able to figure it out.

The Hunzas, and several other groups of people, still live longer in the natural wild, than medical science allows us to live.

I searched it: ''The people of Hunza are by some noted for their exceptionally long life expectancy,[7] others describe this as a longevity narrative and cite a life expectancy of 53 years for men and 52 for women although with a high standard deviation.[8] In fact, not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented to indicate that the Hunza people have a life expectancy significantly above that of the average poor, isolated region of Pakistan. Writers who made bold claims about the health and long life of the Burusho almost always did so based solely on the words of the local Mir (king). The only author to have significant and sustained contact with the Burusho people was John Clark, who reported that they were a generally unhealthy people.[9]''

You keep mentioning things that are not proven at all.

And where, exactly does the scientific evidence begin that shows that the reports are false?

[BADecker]

Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.

How long have we been doing these medical things? Less than 100 years. We had thousands of years to advance this far. It took that long. Complexity in the universe is tremendously great.

So what if we had thousands of years, how do you determine it was long?

I don't have to determine. Standard science says that we were simple hunter-gatherers 10,000 years ago. How long will it take us idiots to figure out the whole universe? Science doesn't even know if big bang, black hole theory, relativity, gravity theory are true to name a few. And they won't accept that evolution isn't worth even being called a theory even though it has been dis-proven over and over. With science like this, we are going backwards... devolving.

[BADecker]

Cause and effect alone show that God KNOWS way differently than we. God makes no mistakes. That's why even nuclear bombs can't break the laws of physics... physics that all operate through cause and effect.

Nobody knows like this except God.




Cause and effect doesn't show anything about god, you are just making conclusions for some reason

Cause and effect shows programming.
Complexity shows that the Programmer is tremendously capable,
beyond anything that we can imagine.
Entropy shows that there was a beginning.

The result is God, even though it isn't a God necessarily described by some religious book. Actually, the God shown by science is far greater than His description in any religious book.

[BADecker]

Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
 

Horacewoodwood is a religious fanatic. He comes to a science thread like this one, and all he can do is talk religion.

Where is the science here, I fail to find any. All I could find is an idiot who thinks he is a scientist but barely understands how and why he breathes. You are still full of shit and you have absolutely nothing to do with science. You are a religious fanatic who would do anything to make people believe God exists.

It is easy to make a scientific determination that your talk is religious. All we need do is take a scientific look at the things that you say.