Scientific proof that God exists?

[Przemax]

Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. It doesn't get you anywhere. I can't prove God didn't do it just like I can't prove other gods didn't do it. There is still the possibility of none of them doing it anyways. That's not a hypothesis. First of all, what am I supposed to test? Second thing is, where is the evidence leading to the hypothesis.

If you want to disprove it, its easily done. God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself. If you prove that the existance of animals is driven by different principles, like how recreation is like you have succesfully proven God could not exist.

Thats this easy. You are suppose to test if any animal can "evolve" so much that it can no longer breed with its kind, and you have proven that God of the Bible have not done it. Becuase they have not demonstrated God is not neccessary for new kind of thing to happen. Either its a star or a kind of animal.

That was not the case, and in my opinion it will not happen. That proves that evolution did not replace God. By replacing i mean, that evolution had explained that God had not do it.

Is that so hard to understand? The big bang theory is connected to that. No single star had been born since we observe and every day new star probably dies somewhere. Hows that makes God obsolete? I would say evidence is to the contrary.

Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it.

life is mortal. It dies. So if a God would create beings they all would die by now. What is important is that those creatures reproduce themselves, and thise reproducion is described how it is done so that the life can be maintained classified by their kinds. One kind can breed with another of its kind. Its that simple to prove there is yet another kind of animal. Something brand new that evolved from a known other kind.

To ''disprove'' something, you would need to prove it first. You simply do not understand what it means to prove something. You are basically saying that I can claim anything and it's true unless you are able to prove me wrong, it doesn't work like that. ''God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself'' How do you know? How do you know God has said any of that? Can you prove how animals are generated from nothing? Or instantly which is what god supposedly did? ''If you prove that the existence of animals is driven by different principles'' Well so far I don't think anyone has seen an animal appear from nowhere, so I guess I disproved god?

No you have not disproved God, because my counter argument is that the creation phase was over some times ago and there is no creation now. Do you understand the rule of the game call logic and language? Or you still claiming you are an atheist while there is no atheist that is not a liar on this earth.

Ofcourse you can claim anything as a fact. Thats what language is. You seriously think you can actualy prove anything? Lets say I would claim that I sun is shining. Its a fact. Sun is shining sometimes. When I would say sun is shining now, you would have to check if sun is shining somewhere on the planet. etc etc.

I can say the sun is blue. You say it is not. Maybe I say this when I have a glasses that makes me see sun as a blue ball. Ofcourse I can say anything. Its a matter of a language statement to disprove the logical statement and observations and not prove it.

You have got it all wrong. There is no definite truth or definite proof. There could be only statement of counter argument that proves that some statements are false.

Learn how language works and how science works and then talk to me about what is proof and what is not. Language and logic is all about arguments and counter arguments. You can claim anything you like unless proven wrong. Thats the function of language.

I can say trolls have pooped on my bed. You do not know what do I mean by naming someone a troll. You can easily say that trolls does not exist where I live and noone ever heard about them so for you are a loony that talks nonsense. I could say that he lives on mars for example. You don't know if on mars there are no trolls. etc etc. Or you can say that there are no observations of life on mars. etc etc. Battle on arguments might continue forever.

You have absolutely wrong conception about truth. Someone has made you disfavour by making you think science is about proving stuff. Science is about disproving stuff. So if you think you can't disprove God, just separate God from science otherwise you would just be saying complete nonsense. Atheism without disproving God is a contradiction.  Definision of atheism is a point of view that think the God does not exist, so it need to have a counter argument for those that think he exist. Do you have one? If not, then stop being an atheist because you contradict yourself.

A succesful science makes such a statement that its impossible to make counter argument. As long as you find a counter argument that statement should stop being called scientific, and should be revised.

[qwik2learn]

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.

The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.

How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.

[Astargath]

Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it. It doesn't get you anywhere. I can't prove God didn't do it just like I can't prove other gods didn't do it. There is still the possibility of none of them doing it anyways. That's not a hypothesis. First of all, what am I supposed to test? Second thing is, where is the evidence leading to the hypothesis.

If you want to disprove it, its easily done. God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself. If you prove that the existance of animals is driven by different principles, like how recreation is like you have succesfully proven God could not exist.

Thats this easy. You are suppose to test if any animal can "evolve" so much that it can no longer breed with its kind, and you have proven that God of the Bible have not done it. Becuase they have not demonstrated God is not neccessary for new kind of thing to happen. Either its a star or a kind of animal.

That was not the case, and in my opinion it will not happen. That proves that evolution did not replace God. By replacing i mean, that evolution had explained that God had not do it.

Is that so hard to understand? The big bang theory is connected to that. No single star had been born since we observe and every day new star probably dies somewhere. Hows that makes God obsolete? I would say evidence is to the contrary.

Saying god created life is the same as saying (Insert any other supreme being) did it.

life is mortal. It dies. So if a God would create beings they all would die by now. What is important is that those creatures reproduce themselves, and thise reproducion is described how it is done so that the life can be maintained classified by their kinds. One kind can breed with another of its kind. Its that simple to prove there is yet another kind of animal. Something brand new that evolved from a known other kind.

To ''disprove'' something, you would need to prove it first. You simply do not understand what it means to prove something. You are basically saying that I can claim anything and it's true unless you are able to prove me wrong, it doesn't work like that. ''God have said what did he create and how does it recreate itself'' How do you know? How do you know God has said any of that? Can you prove how animals are generated from nothing? Or instantly which is what god supposedly did? ''If you prove that the existence of animals is driven by different principles'' Well so far I don't think anyone has seen an animal appear from nowhere, so I guess I disproved god?

No you have not disproved God, because my counter argument is that the creation phase was over some times ago and there is no creation now. Do you understand the rule of the game call logic and language? Or you still claiming you are an atheist while there is no atheist that is not a liar on this earth.

Ofcourse you can claim anything as a fact. Thats what language is. You seriously think you can actualy prove anything? Lets say I would claim that I sun is shining. Its a fact. Sun is shining sometimes. When I would say sun is shining now, you would have to check if sun is shining somewhere on the planet. etc etc.

I can say the sun is blue. You say it is not. Maybe I say this when I have a glasses that makes me see sun as a blue ball. Ofcourse I can say anything. Its a matter of a language statement to disprove the logical statement and observations and not prove it.

You have got it all wrong. There is no definite truth or definite proof. There could be only statement of counter argument that proves that some statements are false.

Learn how language works and how science works and then talk to me about what is proof and what is not. Language and logic is all about arguments and counter arguments. You can claim anything you like unless proven wrong. Thats the function of language.

I can say trolls have pooped on my bed. You do not know what do I mean by naming someone a troll. You can easily say that trolls does not exist where I live and noone ever heard about them so for you are a loony that talks nonsense. I could say that he lives on mars for example. You don't know if on mars there are no trolls. etc etc. Or you can say that there are no observations of life on mars. etc etc. Battle on arguments might continue forever.

You have absolutely wrong conception about truth. Someone has made you disfavour by making you think science is about proving stuff. Science is about disproving stuff. So if you think you can't disprove God, just separate God from science otherwise you would just be saying complete nonsense. Atheism without disproving God is a contradiction.  Definision of atheism is a point of view that think the God does not exist, so it need to have a counter argument for those that think he exist. Do you have one? If not, then stop being an atheist because you contradict yourself.

A succesful science makes such a statement that its impossible to make counter argument. As long as you find a counter argument that statement should stop being called scientific, and should be revised.

You haven't proved god. It doesn't have to be ''scientifically'' proven, it just has to be proven. You either prove his existence or you admit you believe in him blindly.

[qwik2learn]

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

You are wrong about that.

The law of biogenesis says that "life cannot come from non-life", yet abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory because there is no other way to explain the origin of life than from "non-life".

The Improbability of Abiogenesis:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

Abiogenesis is falsifiable with these statistics, there has to be an additional factor that caused the impossible transformation.

[Przemax]

[

You haven't proved god. It doesn't have to be ''scientifically'' proven, it just has to be proven. You either prove his existence or you admit you believe in him blindly.

Proving is just a fiction that came out from law and bureucracy. You cannot prove anything outside of the court of law and bureucracy. The last thing that science do is to prove. You can say that some sentence - like a criminal sentence is not disproven to correct by the defence.

I know you like fiction thats why you like evolution and big bang.

Like all liars you love to abuse the language. The language is free. Here is a list of your possition abuses, and they claim those abuses are their strongest claims, just like your best claim is abuse the language to mix god and human law terms.

https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/ The list of lies you support with your possition is enourmous.

By the way. The evolution is almost right, just like pig is almost a human. Just like you disprove the need for God creation by discovering the ring specie. It just need a one step forward to prove you are right.

God is like:



Almost right means you are wrong. Do you want a 2nd winner hat?

Predictions of how mass makes the world go around is below the statistical error. Another 2nd winner hat.

Do you need more law fiction to believe you make your case?

P.S. By the way I had not put a God into a trial in court. He will put me into a trial in his court. You got all things upside down man.

You will have your time to say that God does not exist while speaking in his court room rofl.

[qwik2learn]

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.

The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.

How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.

Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?

[Astargath]

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

You are wrong about that.

The law of biogenesis says that "life cannot come from non-life", yet abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory because there is no other way to explain the origin of life than from "non-life".

The Improbability of Abiogenesis:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

Abiogenesis is falsifiable with these statistics, there has to be an additional factor that caused the impossible transformation.

These statistics are made up, mate. I already showed that a few times. The calculation is simply wrong.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/
http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

There are successful experiments on abiogenesis. Obviously it still needs to be studied quite a lot.

[Astargath]

[

You haven't proved god. It doesn't have to be ''scientifically'' proven, it just has to be proven. You either prove his existence or you admit you believe in him blindly.

Proving is just a fiction that came out from law and bureucracy. You cannot prove anything outside of the court of law and bureucracy. The last thing that science do is to prove. You can say that some sentence - like a criminal sentence is not disproven to correct by the defence.

I know you like fiction thats why you like evolution and big bang.

Like all liars you love to abuse the language. The language is free. Here is a list of your possition abuses, and they claim those abuses are their strongest claims, just like your best claim is abuse the language to mix god and human law terms.

https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/ The list of lies you support with your possition is enourmous.

By the way. The evolution is almost right, just like pig is almost a human. Just like you disprove the need for God creation by discovering the ring specie. It just need a one step forward to prove you are right.

God is like:



Almost right means you are wrong. Do you want a 2nd winner hat?

Predictions of how mass makes the world go around is below the statistical error. Another 2nd winner hat.

Do you need more law fiction to believe you make your case?

P.S. By the way I had not put a God into a trial in court. He will put me into a trial in his court. You got all things upside down man.

You will have your time to say that God does not exist while speaking in his court room rofl.

All of that talk instead of just saying, I believe in god because I was indoctrinated that way and I don't really have any reason for it.

Sure there are frauds and myths about evolution just like creationists have found 100 times noah's ark, I guess that disproves the bible as well, right?

[Przemax]

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.

The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.

How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.

Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?

God wanted a faithful servant. He saw how Kanninites are disobetient to him, and they judge by themselves and call evil good.

God wanted to know if Abraham is following his own definition of good, calling good evil, or will he trust God. God is testing his faithful servant all the time. Why do you call that evil? Are you better than God? Or claim you are? Are you not testing your friends or spause loyalties? I doubt you don't. And it was a sign to distinguish child sacrifice in the name of Baal from God. Baal was a pseudo diety that claimed he did the same as Yahwe did. You can't judge something outside of the context. It was a convenant with Abraham and Jacob NOT TO KILL CHILDREN ( a practice that was often done that time).

I would like to remind that Satan is still (probably) not cased out of the heavens that time, so he test the God and accuse him and his angels. So the Abraham was accused by Satan just like Hiob was, to test their faith.

If you take things out of context and claim that God like the Epicureans did - I suggest you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a0hAPnh8CY&t=550s

Sure there are frauds and myths about evolution just like creationists have found 100 times noah's ark, I guess that disproves the bible as well, right?

Noah ark? Thats not in the school books. Listen... all you have are frauds. I don't need no stinking ark that for sure is rotten. Only stupid people are searching for its and its an obvious scam.

100% of missing links are frauds, and you say that some creationist are idiots as well. How silly language that is...... You could be at least a bit sincere can you? Thats just stupid. Have I said that that frauds disprove evolution? Other things disprove it. Learn how to read. Until you find out that the ring specie can evolve further making a seperate kind (can no longer have offsprings with more than one of its variety of kind from which it evolved) your theory is piece of crap at best. How to disprove a piece of crap? By saying it does not explain what it says it explain. It explains micro evolution and macro evolution is their holy grail that they will steal, cheat and commit fraud to get, still with no success.

All of that talk instead of just saying, I believe in god because I was indoctrinated that way and I don't really have any reason for it.

Wrong. I was not indoctrinated by anyone. I found God myself on my own accord. I was atheist just like you, until I saw that a complete folly.

There are successful experiments on abiogenesis. Obviously it still needs to be studied quite a lot.

Do not lie. All claims to make a ALL of the amino acids needed out of non organic materia (by making the enviroment how they thought it was) are wrong.

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

[Astargath]

Skeptics have been known to ignore the evidence presented to them , I even posted 100 points of evidence here but received no adequate reply.

You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.

Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.

The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.

I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.

How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.

Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:

Is the Bible fit for worship?

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.  God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.  Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God.  “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah.  Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)  Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him.  He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar.  Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat.  He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith.  However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.

Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do.  If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch.  It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love.  There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.

So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?

God wanted a faithful servant. He saw how Kanninites are disobetient to him, and they judge by themselves and call evil good.

God wanted to know if Abraham is following his own definition of good, calling good evil, or will he trust God. God is testing his faithful servant all the time. Why do you call that evil? Are you better than God? Or claim you are? Are you not testing your friends or spause loyalties? I doubt you don't. And it was a sign to distinguish child sacrifice in the name of Baal from God. Baal was a pseudo diety that claimed he did the same as Yahwe did. You can't judge something outside of the context. It was a convenant with Abraham and Jacob NOT TO KILL CHILDREN ( a practice that was often done that time).

I would like to remind that Satan is still (probably) not cased out of the heavens that time, so he test the God and accuse him and his angels. So the Abraham was accused by Satan just like Hiob was, to test their faith.

If you take things out of context and claim that God like the Epicureans did - I suggest you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a0hAPnh8CY&t=550s

Sure there are frauds and myths about evolution just like creationists have found 100 times noah's ark, I guess that disproves the bible as well, right?

Noah ark? Thats not in the school books. Listen... all you have are frauds. I don't need no stinking ark that for sure is rotten. Only stupid people are searching for its and its an obvious scam.

100% of missing links are frauds, and you say that some creationist are idiots as well. How silly language that is...... You could be at least a bit sincere can you? Thats just stupid. Have I said that that frauds disprove evolution? Other things disprove it. Learn how to read. Until you find out that the ring specie can evolve further making a seperate kind (can no longer have offsprings with more than one of its variety of kind from which it evolved) your theory is piece of crap at best. How to disprove a piece of crap? By saying it does not explain what it says it explain. It explains micro evolution and macro evolution is their holy grail that they will steal, cheat and commit fraud to get, still with no success.

All of that talk instead of just saying, I believe in god because I was indoctrinated that way and I don't really have any reason for it.

Wrong. I was not indoctrinated by anyone. I found God myself on my own accord. I was atheist just like you, until I saw that a complete folly.

There are successful experiments on abiogenesis. Obviously it still needs to be studied quite a lot.

Do not lie. All claims to make a protein out of non organic materia (by making the enviroment how they thought it was) or even a part of it was proven to be..... yes you guessed it right FRAUDS!

''it was proven to be..... yes you guessed it right FRAUDS'' Where is the proof?

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

[Przemax]

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.

You need to be schooled what is science again:

[Astargath]

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.

How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

[Przemax]

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.

How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

[Astargath]

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.

How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

Still waiting for any proof, evidence or reasoning on why people should believe in god.

[Przemax]

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.

How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

Still waiting for any proof, evidence or reasoning on why people should believe in god.

1. Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.
2. Another psychological reason. People need to know from where everything starts. Scientist are made fools of themselves so the only game in town is God.
3. Genetical. Men have XY chromosomes. So a man could not came from woman (XX chromosomes) but the other way around its possible. Tell me - How the fuck could Moses know genetics back then? Thats awesome guess by him if it was just pure luck.
4. Etological. Love is the general principle of life. We like giving, sharing and such. Proves that Christ word is true.
5. Geographical. Mount Ararat that claimed to be where the paradise of eden was looks like it had a connection with all the waters of the earth. In the bible the 4 great rivers have the begining there. Those could be connected into 2 main rivers later on that divides into the atlantic ocean that goes north and south, and the later is Indian Ocean to the south and the Pacific goes towards the north. You might laugh from that, but that seems logical. It was claimed that 4 rivers of the world contains almost all of the waters of the earth.
6. The argument that Baddeker makes in this thread.
7. The God being a space - electric world principles, and defining what is a space by magnetism.
8. The similiarities between the dna proves the common ancestor.
9. We have no idea how clouds are made. A hint - its not only a vapour, there proven to be something called a dry clouds. In the Bible its often said that its the God that forms the clouds and makes them rain. Seems legit as we do not have any idea how they are formed, even when we are so "advanced".
10. How God makes the enemy of Israel to be defeated proves that he uses magentism (blinding people and horses, the eye retina can be damaged by high dose of magnetism) micro waves ( making the fearfull by cooking their brains) uses lighting ( fire from the sky). That implies that God is some electromagnetic principle.
11. God said he makes people tremble - electromagnetic radiation or some other radiation, and as we know everything vibrates, thats a fact.
12. There have to be a creator or some kind of creation because we do not observe for example the birth of new stars, new kinds of animals and such.
13. Being sinful is actualy bad for your health. All of the 7 cardinal sins are bad for you overall health.
14. Bible seems to be the only book at that times teaches why to use quarantine. So its a book that teaches about the hygiene, and epidemics. How could they know about the germs back then? They could not.

Makes you wonder - how could they knew all that is possible if some of them would not seen of this stuff. Either they were smart and advanced, or God is.

Many many many other scientific reasoning and evidence that the science only lately discovered may put a new light on the Bible that its not a lie. Those people could not know this stuff so long ago.

[Astargath]

In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

The Miller–Urey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22

This thread is about scientific proof for god, since you are giving none, why don't you stop posting?

Why do you post your evolution crap - its SCIENTIFIC proof of God thread. Yeah.... You prove it by making a fool out of atheism.

You clearly do not know how to read. I told you SCIENCE is not making PROOFS. ehhhhhhhh....... Even tho the thread is named wrong its about science and God and its relations.

This thread if named properly should be called:

Scientists claiming their hypothesis (or even thoeries) disprove or ridicule the existance of God, ridicule and disprove themselves by science.

How does that disprove abiogenesis? ''scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life'' You acknowledge they did produce them. Of course it's a difficult problem but that doesn't disprove it whatsoever LOL. Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

Just admit you have blind faith.

How does not having 20 legos required to build a house makes you build a house? Hows that not a shot in a foot?

Blind faith is believing something having an eye closed to truth. You are the one closing your eyes to the truth. Like the truth of a matter of fact that to have a building block containing 20 of amino acids minimum you need to have 20 amino acids.

You are closing your eyes to the truth that 10 amino acids is not 20. And its not a small problem you need a whole another experiment proving where had you get 10 of the rest amino acids? Its like a Big Big fail that you claim is a win.... Thats kind of pathetic.

Nice not bias site by the way. ''Creation.com'' Rofl.

I would not find it on one of your sites thats for sure, because you do not know that. Thats obvious if something is embarassing to you, you would want to hide it.

Still waiting for any proof, evidence or reasoning on why people should believe in god.

1. Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction.
2. Another psychological reason. People need to know from where everything starts. Scientist are made fools of themselves so the only game in town is God.
3. Genetical. Men have XY chromosomes. So a man could not came from woman (XX chromosomes) but the other way around its possible. Tell me - How the fuck could Moses know genetics back then? Thats awesome guess by him if it was just pure luck.
4. Etological Love is the general principle of life. We like giving, sharing and such. Proves that Christ word is true.
5. Geographical Mount Ararat that claimed to be where the paradise of eden was looks like it had a connection with all the waters of the earth. In the bible the 4 great rivers have the begining there. Those could be connected into 2 main rivers later on that divides into the atlantic ocean that goes north and south, and the later is Indian Ocean to the south and the Pacific goes towards the north. You might laugh from that, but that seems logical. It was claimed that 4 rivers of the world contains almost all of the waters of the earth.
6. The argument that Baddeker makes in this thread.
7. The God being a space - electric world principles, and defining what is a space by magnetism.
8. The similiarities between the dna proves the common ancestor.
9. We have no idea how clouds are made. A hint - its not only a vapour, there proven to be something called a dry clouds.
10. How God makes the enemy of Israel to be defeated proves that he uses magentism (blinding people and horses, the eye retina can be damaged by high dose of magnetism) micro waves ( making the fearfull by cooking their brains) uses lighting ( fire from the sky). That implies that God is some electromagnetic principle.
11. God said he makes people tremble - electromagnetic radiation or some other radiation, and as we know everything vibrates, thats a fact.
12. There have to be a creator or some kind of creation because we do not observe for example the birth of new stars, new kinds of animals and such.
13. Being sinful is actualy bad for your health. All of the 7 cardinal sins are bad for you overall health.
14. Bible seems to be the only book at that times teaches why to use quarantine. So its a book that teaches about the hygiene, and epidemics. How could they know about the germs back then? They could not.

Makes you wonder - how could they knew all that is possible if some of them would not seen of this stuff. Either they were smart and advanced, or God is.

Many many many other scientific reasoning and evidence that the science only lately discovered may put a new light on the Bible that its not a lie. Those people could not know this stuff so long ago.

1. Psychological. Carnal needs does not grants satisfaction. Guess what a rich person wants? More money? What strong person wants - more strenght. etc etc. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction. (Which God? There are other stupid beliefs that could give you satisfaction, like reincarnation)
2. Another psychological reason. People need to know from where everything starts. Scientist are made fools of themselves so the only game in town is God. (God, which God, also super smart aliens that created everything or we live in a simulated reality or who knows)
3. Genetical. Men have XY chromosomes. So a man could not came from woman (XX chromosomes) but the other way around its possible. Tell me - How the fuck could Moses know genetics back then? Thats awesome guess by him if it was just pure luck. (Awesome guess? It seems to me like 50/50 LOL, it's either man first, woman second, or woman first man second and people in that time always thought men are more important than women so nice argument here)
4. Etological Love is the general principle of life. We like giving, sharing and such. Proves that Christ word is true. (That ''proves'' that christ word is true? ROFL I could say that survivability is the general principle of life as well, who says what the general principle of life is anyways)
5. Geographical Mount Ararat that claimed to be where the paradise of eden was looks like it had a connection with all the waters of the earth. In the bible the 4 great rivers have the begining there. Those could be connected into 2 main rivers later on that divides into the atlantic ocean that goes north and south, and the later is Indian Ocean to the south and the Pacific goes towards the north. You might laugh from that, but that seems logical. It was claimed that 4 rivers of the world contains almost all of the waters of the earth. (I did laugh)
6. The argument that Baddeker makes in this thread. (Which I debunked several times)
7. The God being a space - electric world principles, and defining what is a space by magnetism. (I don't know what the fuck that means)
8. The similiarities between the dna proves the common ancestor. (So?)
9. We have no idea how clouds are made. A hint - its not only a vapour, there proven to be something called a dry clouds. (Having no idea how clouds or anything is made does not prove god)
10. How God makes the enemy of Israel to be defeated proves that he uses magentism (blinding people and horses, the eye retina can be damaged by high dose of magnetism) micro waves ( making the fearfull by cooking their brains) uses lighting ( fire from the sky). That implies that God is some electromagnetic principle. (You would have to prove that he did any of that in the first place)
11. God said he makes people tremble - electromagnetic radiation or some other radiation, and as we know everything vibrates, thats a fact. (Again you would need to prove that)
12. There have to be a creator or some kind of creation because we do not observe for example the birth of new stars, new kinds of animals and such. (https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/aug/21/birth-new-star-observatory-video)
13. Being sinful is actualy bad for your health. All of the 7 cardinal sins are bad for you overall health. (So?)
14. Bible seems to be the only book at that times teaches why to use quarantine. So its a book that teaches about the hygiene, and epidemics. How could they know about the germs back then? They could not. (I'm pretty sure the quarantines were for leoprsy lol)

[Przemax]

I would need to prove. Ok. You were proven wrong with your silly ass evolution nonesense. That seems fair.

You say I don't have proofs... Yeah... I did not know it was trial and I am judged by you. You said reasons and evidences. And you like a donkey are stuck with word proof that you do not even understand. You are a funny little atheist.

You don't get the point with all that. ALL OF THAT WAS NOT PROVEN WRONG. Even if all of that was 50/50 none of that is wrong. While ALL of your evolution school book claims are 100% fraud. Bible is miracly not contradictory with science even on iota. Does that not amaze you? If God would said - and I had cut their head with my magic sword - that would be a science illiterate blubbering idiot speaking. That would be impossible, but a ghost that is a electromagnetic energy itself, he could do the things he said he done in the Bible with 100% scientific accuracy it could be done.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/aug/21/birth-new-star-observatory-video

For sure that was a merge of stars. Thats the first time I heard of such a thing.

I had found such an answer:

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.

One million years old star as new? Wow... Thats something I need to get used to talking with atheists. Full of deceit.

And I have made an error - I ment designer ofcourse. Common designer.

[qwik2learn]

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

You are wrong about that.

The law of biogenesis says that "life cannot come from non-life", yet abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory because there is no other way to explain the origin of life than from "non-life".

The Improbability of Abiogenesis:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

Abiogenesis is falsifiable with these statistics, there has to be an additional factor that caused the impossible transformation.

These statistics are made up, mate. I already showed that a few times. The calculation is simply wrong.

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/
http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

There are successful experiments on abiogenesis. Obviously it still needs to be studied quite a lot.

Your link is outdated, the RNA World hypothesis is not favored by researchers.

The latest research does not substantiate the abiogenesis theory, researchers were not able to produce an RNA polymer of even 5 base pairs under room temperature conditions, under real conditions cytosine begins to degrade almost immediately.

RNA polymers at deep-sea vents:
http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/lifes-building-blocks-form-in-replicated-deep-sea-vents/
Life emerged from hot deep-sea vents:
https://m.phys.org/news/2012-12-life-emerged-cell-membrane-bioenergetics.html
Testing the FeS World hypothesis:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-04-theory-life-deep-sea-vents.amp
RNA World is a biochemist's dream.
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/4/40/htm
RNA was not the first replicator.
http://m.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full#ref-77

[qwik2learn]

. Only the love of God brings you satisfaction. (Which God? There are other stupid beliefs that could give you satisfaction, like reincarnation)

Why is reincarnation (survival) a stupid belief when it is backed by proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena? There is no evidence linking the Eisenbeiss case to fraud or trickery, same with the video of telekinesis which was confirmed on the EEG. How is it acceptable to reject evidence for no other reason than your disliking the conclusion? You are turning science on its head by expecting one outcome and rejecting all others.

More details: http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

[b3j0]

With the existence of the universe is a scientific proof of the existence of god and also the existence of religion...