Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

Hey BADecker, you want to set the truth free, right?
Post all of the scientific reasons and evidence that demonstrate that this is the case.
Then let people make their own conclusions once they have evaluated the evidence for your claim.
Is that fair?

The christian bible (old testament) is written from

Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic etc all who came from Abraham and his children this is the same god/same father yet they all believe it is a different god how does one prove anything when the same religion's cannot even agree.

There wasn't any "Muslim, Islamic, Catholic" at the time the O.T. was written

Ancient Israel government and Hebrew religion were based on the Law of Moses. Whenever anyone from a different nation became a Hebrew, he/she would be required to obey the Law of Moses. If it was a male, he would have to be circumcised in addition, according to the command that God gave Abraham.

Just as every nation in the world accepts new citizens from other nations at times, the Hebrew nation did as well. The above was the method for the ancient Hebrews. And it probably still follows in the laws of Israel today.

It is difficult to determine which is the right religion. The examples that the Bible gives show that the Hebrew people didn't always keep their religion pure. Yet, the Bible remained pure.

[mymenace]

The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

Hey BADecker, you want to set the truth free, right?
Post all of the scientific reasons and evidence that demonstrate that this is the case.
Then let people make their own conclusions once they have evaluated the evidence for your claim.
Is that fair?

The christian bible (old testament) is written from

Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic etc all who came from Abraham and his children this is the same god/same father yet they all believe it is a different god how does one prove anything when the same religion's cannot even agree.

There wasn't any "Muslim, Islamic, Catholic" at the time the O.T. was written

Ancient Israel government and Hebrew religion were based on the Law of Moses. Whenever anyone from a different nation became a Hebrew, he/she would be required to obey the Law of Moses. If it was a male, he would have to be circumcised in addition, according to the command that God gave Abraham.

Just as every nation in the world accepts new citizens from other nations at times, the Hebrew nation did as well. The above was the method for the ancient Hebrews. And it probably still follows in the laws of Israel today.

It is difficult to determine which is the right religion. The examples that the Bible gives show that the Hebrew people didn't always keep their religion pure. Yet, the Bible remained pure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם‎ (About this sound listen (help·info))), originally Abram, is the first of the three biblical patriarchs. His story, told in chapters 11 through 25 of the Book of Genesis, plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[1]

Abraham lived before Moses and his teachings were passed onto Moses

thats where i got it from and various other texts as well like the bible, all these religions (Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic, Christianity) are derived from here.

yet there is a perception that a god from this small region is the one god compared to the rest of the world such as Asia, America, India, Australia, Europe where there are plenty of other gods or spirits that provide faith and belief to a world not dominated by Abraham's religion.

Have you read the Bible?

[cooldgamer]

The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.

Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.

You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.

Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support.  However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick.  There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.

See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.

Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.

Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.

Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.

There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.

If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.

There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.

*Facepalm*  

Again, you absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence.  This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.  

There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction.  Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.

Edit:  A note about evidence:  Evidence simply means "that which is apparent."  When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it.  That is it.  Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.  

Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence.  At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means.  That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.

Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.

Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.

But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.

In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

I'm losing braincells responding, but I'll keep doing it in hopes you might learn something.  

First, there is lots/LOTS/LOTS of evidence for evolution.  You said it is 'just a theory', but a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the normal usage of the word.  Pretty much all of the research in the field so far has pointed to evolution as what has happened.  We can observe it happening before our eyes in labs on small scales, anybody that denies evolution is just flat out stupid.  Same goes for the big bang and a extremely old universe, everything we have so far points to it (although not as definitively for those, but a million times more than evidence that supports the bible: none).  Scientists don't agree with you, you're delusional.

The existence of the bible is impossible?  There is something that kept words from being written down?  Dunno what you're smoking, but get me some of it

[vokain]

"“All that exists  [in our minds] is metaphor', he said, 'and whoever controls our metaphors controls us.'”

[mymenace]

As for religion not faith
Would you believe any one that says to you "lets cut the top of his dick off"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם‎ (About this sound listen (help·info))), originally Abram, is the first of the three biblical patriarchs. His story, told in chapters 11 through 25 of the Book of Genesis, plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[1]

Abraham lived before Moses and his teachings were passed onto Moses

There is evidence of a spiritual partnership between the sons of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews) and the sons of Abraham through Ishmael (the Arabs and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad). Ishmael and Isaac together buried their father Abraham. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 25:7-10, RSV.

thats where all these religions (Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic, Christianity) are derived from here.

yet there is a perception that a god from this small region is the one god compared to the rest of the world such as Asia, America, India, Australia, Europe where there are plenty of other gods or spirits that provide faith and belief to a world not dominated by Abraham's religion.


in essence the children of abraham are still fighting with each other and have no idea it is the same god

how can science prove there is a god when they do not know where to look

[BADecker]

The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.

Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.

You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.

Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support.  However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick.  There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.

See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.

Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.

Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.

Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.

There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.

If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.

There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.

*Facepalm*  

Again, you absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence.  This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.  

There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction.  Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.

Edit:  A note about evidence:  Evidence simply means "that which is apparent."  When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it.  That is it.  Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.  

Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence.  At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means.  That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.

Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.

Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.

But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.

In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

I'm losing braincells responding, but I'll keep doing it in hopes you might learn something.  

First, there is lots/LOTS/LOTS of evidence for evolution.  You said it is 'just a theory', but a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the normal usage of the word.  Pretty much all of the research in the field so far has pointed to evolution as what has happened.  We can observe it happening before our eyes in labs on small scales, anybody that denies evolution is just flat out stupid.  Same goes for the big bang and a extremely old universe, everything we have so far points to it (although not as definitively for those, but a million times more than evidence that supports the bible: none).  Scientists don't agree with you, you're delusional.

The existence of the bible is impossible?  There is something that kept words from being written down?  Dunno what you're smoking, but get me some of it

Not to tax your braincells any more than necessary...

Almost everything in science that points in the direction of evolution, also points in other directions that don't include evolution. And there are other things in science that point away from evolution. Just depends on the what you want to us and what you want to use it for.

Nothing has kept words from being written down. The important thing that makes the Bible an impossibility is the content, the periods from which it was written, the same basic theme being written about by a multitude of different authors, the historical impact, the fact of how widespread it is today, number of ancient manuscripts and fragments, and many other factors, including that the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah shows that the content hasn't changed of millennia.When you add everything up that can be discovered about the Bible, it's a book that can't exist... except that it does.

How's them braincells doing? Taxing your deceptive posting a little? For your own good, I wish you would be taxed into checking it out.

[BADecker]

As for religion not faith
Would you believe any one that says to you "lets cut the top of his dick off"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם‎ (About this sound listen (help·info))), originally Abram, is the first of the three biblical patriarchs. His story, told in chapters 11 through 25 of the Book of Genesis, plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[1]

Abraham lived before Moses and his teachings were passed onto Moses

There is evidence of a spiritual partnership between the sons of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews) and the sons of Abraham through Ishmael (the Arabs and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad). Ishmael and Isaac together buried their father Abraham. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 25:7-10, RSV.

thats where all these religions (Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic, Christianity) are derived from here.

yet there is a perception that a god from this small region is the one god compared to the rest of the world such as Asia, America, India, Australia, Europe where there are plenty of other gods or spirits that provide faith and belief to a world not dominated by Abraham's religion.


in essence the children of abraham are still fighting with each other and have no idea it is the same god

how can science prove there is a god when they do not know where to look

Not the same god. The people might have a common ancestor. But the god is different.

Islam is from Muhammad from around 600 AD. Even though he is considered to be the last of the prophets, the first of the writings were revealed by him around that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Moses wrote from around 1500 BC. Some Bible scholars think that the first 2 books of the Bible were written by Adam or Abraham, centuries before Moses, and simply transcribed by Moses.

The whole idea of the Bible is salvation through the gift of God, that is, through Jesus.

The Islamic Qur'an suggests if not downright says that salvation is based on how good/bad you were in this life.

Christianity came into being starting with Jesus, the Christ, even though it was not called by that name initially, in a year 0-4 AD. Calendars have changed, and we really don't know exactly the year that Jesus was born in.

Catholicism as a term for Christianity came about near the beginning of the second hundred years AD. Probably the solidification for the church which would become the modern Catholic Church happened in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The point is, just because people came from the same ancestor, doesn't mean that they have the same religion, or that their religions are all the same.

Consider all the "fathers" of the modern science religion. Modern science is such a mishmash of beliefs that it's approximately the worst religion around today.

The fact that the science religion has so many believers - and strong believers, at that - shows you exactly how easy it is to talk people into a religion that they want to hear, whether or not it makes any sense at all.

[mymenace]

As for religion not faith
Would you believe any one that says to you "lets cut the top of his dick off"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם‎ (About this sound listen (help·info))), originally Abram, is the first of the three biblical patriarchs. His story, told in chapters 11 through 25 of the Book of Genesis, plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[1]

Abraham lived before Moses and his teachings were passed onto Moses

There is evidence of a spiritual partnership between the sons of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews) and the sons of Abraham through Ishmael (the Arabs and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad). Ishmael and Isaac together buried their father Abraham. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 25:7-10, RSV.

thats where all these religions (Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic, Christianity) are derived from here.

yet there is a perception that a god from this small region is the one god compared to the rest of the world such as Asia, America, India, Australia, Europe where there are plenty of other gods or spirits that provide faith and belief to a world not dominated by Abraham's religion.


in essence the children of abraham are still fighting with each other and have no idea it is the same god

how can science prove there is a god when they do not know where to look

Not the same god. The people might have a common ancestor. But the god is different.

Islam is from Muhammad from around 600 AD. Even though he is considered to be the last of the prophets, the first of the writings were revealed by him around that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Moses wrote from around 1500 BC. Some Bible scholars think that the first 2 books of the Bible were written by Adam or Abraham, centuries before Moses, and simply transcribed by Moses.

The whole idea of the Bible is salvation through the gift of God, that is, through Jesus.

The Islamic Qur'an suggests if not downright says that salvation is based on how good/bad you were in this life.

Christianity came into being starting with Jesus, the Christ, even though it was not called by that name initially, in a year 0-4 AD. Calendars have changed, and we really don't know exactly the year that Jesus was born in.

Catholicism as a term came for Christianity about near the beginning of the second hundred years AD. Probably the solidification for the church which would become the modern Catholic Church happened in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The point is, just because people came from the same ancestor, doesn't mean that they have the same religion, or that their religions are all the same.

Consider all the "fathers" of the modern science religion. Modern science is such a mishmash of beliefs that it's approximately the worst religion around today.

The fact that the science religion has so many believers - and strong believers, at that - shows you exactly how easy it is to talk people into a religion that hey want to hear, whether or not it makes any sense at all.

point taken

 "Not the same god. The people might have a common ancestor. But the god is different."


 so how to prove god, first we have to find the real one

so therefore we cannot scientifically prove god exists as we do not know which one is the real one



and I also like how you disprove the bible regarding where the same god comes from as i was quoting the bible, did not Abraham teach his sons the same god

There is evidence of a spiritual partnership between the sons of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews) and the sons of Abraham through Ishmael (the Arabs and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad). Ishmael and Isaac together buried their father Abraham. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 25:7-10, RSV.

[cooldgamer]

The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.

Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.

You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.

Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support.  However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick.  There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.

See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.

Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.

Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.

Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.

There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.

If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.

There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.

*Facepalm*  

Again, you absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence.  This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.  

There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction.  Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.

Edit:  A note about evidence:  Evidence simply means "that which is apparent."  When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it.  That is it.  Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.  

Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence.  At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means.  That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.

Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.

Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.

But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.

In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

I'm losing braincells responding, but I'll keep doing it in hopes you might learn something.  

First, there is lots/LOTS/LOTS of evidence for evolution.  You said it is 'just a theory', but a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the normal usage of the word.  Pretty much all of the research in the field so far has pointed to evolution as what has happened.  We can observe it happening before our eyes in labs on small scales, anybody that denies evolution is just flat out stupid.  Same goes for the big bang and a extremely old universe, everything we have so far points to it (although not as definitively for those, but a million times more than evidence that supports the bible: none).  Scientists don't agree with you, you're delusional.

The existence of the bible is impossible?  There is something that kept words from being written down?  Dunno what you're smoking, but get me some of it

Not to tax your braincells any more than necessary...

Almost everything in science that points in the direction of evolution, also points in other directions that don't include evolution. And there are other things in science that point away from evolution. Just depends on the what you want to us and what you want to use it for.

Nothing has kept words from being written down. The important thing that makes the Bible an impossibility is the content, the periods from which it was written, the same basic theme being written about by a multitude of different authors, the historical impact, the fact of how widespread it is today, number of ancient manuscripts and fragments, and many other factors, including that the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah shows that the content hasn't changed of millennia.When you add everything up that can be discovered about the Bible, it's a book that can't exist... except that it does.

How's them braincells doing? Taxing your deceptive posting a little? For your own good, I wish you would be taxed into checking it out.

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written. 

[BADecker]

As for religion not faith
Would you believe any one that says to you "lets cut the top of his dick off"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם‎ (About this sound listen (help·info))), originally Abram, is the first of the three biblical patriarchs. His story, told in chapters 11 through 25 of the Book of Genesis, plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.[1]

Abraham lived before Moses and his teachings were passed onto Moses

There is evidence of a spiritual partnership between the sons of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews) and the sons of Abraham through Ishmael (the Arabs and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad). Ishmael and Isaac together buried their father Abraham. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 25:7-10, RSV.

thats where all these religions (Judaism, Muslim, Islamic, Catholic, Christianity) are derived from here.

yet there is a perception that a god from this small region is the one god compared to the rest of the world such as Asia, America, India, Australia, Europe where there are plenty of other gods or spirits that provide faith and belief to a world not dominated by Abraham's religion.


in essence the children of abraham are still fighting with each other and have no idea it is the same god

how can science prove there is a god when they do not know where to look

Not the same god. The people might have a common ancestor. But the god is different.

Islam is from Muhammad from around 600 AD. Even though he is considered to be the last of the prophets, the first of the writings were revealed by him around that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Moses wrote from around 1500 BC. Some Bible scholars think that the first 2 books of the Bible were written by Adam or Abraham, centuries before Moses, and simply transcribed by Moses.

The whole idea of the Bible is salvation through the gift of God, that is, through Jesus.

The Islamic Qur'an suggests if not downright says that salvation is based on how good/bad you were in this life.

Christianity came into being starting with Jesus, the Christ, even though it was not called by that name initially, in a year 0-4 AD. Calendars have changed, and we really don't know exactly the year that Jesus was born in.

Catholicism as a term came for Christianity about near the beginning of the second hundred years AD. Probably the solidification for the church which would become the modern Catholic Church happened in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

The point is, just because people came from the same ancestor, doesn't mean that they have the same religion, or that their religions are all the same.

Consider all the "fathers" of the modern science religion. Modern science is such a mishmash of beliefs that it's approximately the worst religion around today.

The fact that the science religion has so many believers - and strong believers, at that - shows you exactly how easy it is to talk people into a religion that hey want to hear, whether or not it makes any sense at all.

point taken

 "Not the same god. The people might have a common ancestor. But the god is different."


 so how to prove god, first we have to find the real one

so therefore we cannot scientifically prove god exists as we do not know which one is the real one



and I also like how you disprove the bible regarding where the different religions come from as i was quoting the bible

There is evidence of a spiritual partnership between the sons of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews) and the sons of Abraham through Ishmael (the Arabs and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad). Ishmael and Isaac together buried their father Abraham. It's in the Bible, the Torah, Genesis 25:7-10, RSV.

Thank you.

More and more these days, strongly religious American Christians get together with strongly Buddhist Japanese gals. They even mail-order their brides. This doesn't mean that they believe in the same God/god. A lot of our Christian guys work with Muslims in Kuwait. This doesn't mean that they believe in the same God/god. Ishmael believed in the same God that Abraham believed in, as did Isaac. Islam didn't come about until around 600 AD.

How do we prove which god is the Real One? That's a good question.

The first thing a person can do is pray to the real God. This means, don't have any preconceived notions about which of the religions (if any) is the right one. Pray constantly, and seriously, for guidance in finding more info about God. He isn't adverse to answering. He is adverse to mockery and unbelief.

A second thing might be, at the same time as prayer, seek the right one by process of elimination. For example. Confucianism might contain essentially the same Golden Rule as Christianity. But did Confucius have a God? Yet, the fact of the creation machinery shows that there is a God. The Bible has a much more complete explanation of God and Creation than Confucianism.

Since none of us has the time to delve into the evidences that would prove one God or another to us, we need to ask for the truth in prayer, and then ask for confirmation when we are given an answer.

[BADecker]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

[mymenace]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

the claim "god created all" could be engineering by another intelligent life form beyond our comprehension not a deity but a living life form. who knows.

[cooldgamer]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

[BitChick]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

All information had to come from somewhere or something that had information.  For example, computer software had to be created by someone that had enough intelligence or information to put that information into the software code.  Even if the hardware of a computer just evolved by chance (which we all know is completely impossible) it would still be a box of metal with no ability to do anything of value.  Why?  It takes software for the machine to run and be useful.

The same could be said for the human body.  Even if the human body happen to evolve where did the information "code" of how our cells interact with each other come from?  It is highly complex and that complexity had to come from somewhere and from something more intelligent than the design of our bodies.  We had to be created by someone.  There is no other explanation. 

All that said, complexity is indeed proof of a higher intelligent being that created the thing that was less complex than the creator of that thing, person, being etc. . .

[cooldgamer]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

All information had to come from somewhere or something that had information.  For example, computer software had to be created by someone that had enough intelligence or information to put that information into the software code.  Even if the hardware of a computer just evolved by chance (which we all know is completely impossible) it would still be a box of metal with no ability to do anything of value.  Why?  It takes software for the machine to run and be useful.

The same could be said for the human body.  Even if the human body happen to evolve where did the information "code" of how our cells interact with each other come from?  It is highly complex and that complexity had to come from somewhere and from something more intelligent than the design of our bodies.  We had to be created by someone.  There is no other explanation.  

All that said, complexity is indeed proof of a higher intelligent being that created the thing that was less complex than the creator of that thing, person, being etc. . .

No, it is not.  If everything complex required a creator than your god would also have to have one, and it's creator have one....  By your logic it would be impossible for a creator to exist because it gets in a infinite loop of needing creators.

Your example of a computer needing code really doesn't work here, as the first organisms didn't have any at all.  Over time evolution made them grow in complexity by making the ones that did thrive, so really it's more like self-patching code by finding out what does and doesn't work.

Check out this video, it does a pretty good job of covering it

[BitChick]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

All information had to come from somewhere or something that had information.  For example, computer software had to be created by someone that had enough intelligence or information to put that information into the software code.  Even if the hardware of a computer just evolved by chance (which we all know is completely impossible) it would still be a box of metal with no ability to do anything of value.  Why?  It takes software for the machine to run and be useful.

The same could be said for the human body.  Even if the human body happen to evolve where did the information "code" of how our cells interact with each other come from?  It is highly complex and that complexity had to come from somewhere and from something more intelligent than the design of our bodies.  We had to be created by someone.  There is no other explanation.  

All that said, complexity is indeed proof of a higher intelligent being that created the thing that was less complex than the creator of that thing, person, being etc. . .

No, it is not.  If everything complex required a creator than your god would also have to have one, and it's creator have one....  By your logic it would be impossible for a creator to exist because it gets in a infinite loop of needing creators.

Your example of a computer needing code really doesn't work here, as the first organisms didn't have any at all.  Over time evolution made them grow in complexity by making the ones that did thrive, so really it's more like self-patching code by finding out what does and doesn't work.

Check out this video, it does a pretty good job of covering it

But what if the creator of our universe just happened to be "all knowing?"  Then this creator would not have to be created.  For all the parts of our world to work so well together then someone or something smarter had to be involved in the design of it. This is just common sense.  Complexity does not increase over time by just "evolving" in any observable experimentation.

[cooldgamer]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

All information had to come from somewhere or something that had information.  For example, computer software had to be created by someone that had enough intelligence or information to put that information into the software code.  Even if the hardware of a computer just evolved by chance (which we all know is completely impossible) it would still be a box of metal with no ability to do anything of value.  Why?  It takes software for the machine to run and be useful.

The same could be said for the human body.  Even if the human body happen to evolve where did the information "code" of how our cells interact with each other come from?  It is highly complex and that complexity had to come from somewhere and from something more intelligent than the design of our bodies.  We had to be created by someone.  There is no other explanation.  

All that said, complexity is indeed proof of a higher intelligent being that created the thing that was less complex than the creator of that thing, person, being etc. . .

No, it is not.  If everything complex required a creator than your god would also have to have one, and it's creator have one....  By your logic it would be impossible for a creator to exist because it gets in a infinite loop of needing creators.

Your example of a computer needing code really doesn't work here, as the first organisms didn't have any at all.  Over time evolution made them grow in complexity by making the ones that did thrive, so really it's more like self-patching code by finding out what does and doesn't work.

Check out this video, it does a pretty good job of covering it

But what if the creator of our universe just happened to be "all knowing?"  Then this creator would not have to be created.  For all the parts of our world to work so well together then someone or something smarter had to be involved in the design of it. This is just common sense.  Complexity does not increase over time by just "evolving" in any observable experimentation.

Well what gave the all knowing creator all of his knowledge?  You're not applying the same standards to your god that you are for evolution.  If you're going to make an argument at least make sure your own idea can stand up to it

We have seen evolution in labs right before our eyes.  Over time bacteria were able to evolve into getting energy from a food source that they could not use before (Source) 

[the joint]

The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.

Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.

You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.

Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support.  However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick.  There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.

See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.

Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.

Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.

Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.

There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.

If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.

There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.

*Facepalm*  

Again, you absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence.  This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.  

There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction.  Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.

Edit:  A note about evidence:  Evidence simply means "that which is apparent."  When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it.  That is it.  Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.  

Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence.  At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means.  That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.

Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.

Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.

But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.

In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

Think before you speak.  Here's what you're constantly missing, even though I already quoted this for you:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms:   branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
synonyms:   physics, chemistry, biology;

I emboldened three phrases.  The first phrase corresponds to a *method*.  The second two are derivatives, with the first derivative referring to various scientific disciplines, and the second referring to a set of knowledge.  If you want to see it in a tidier format, just type "science definition" into Google and see what pops up.

Your mistake is that, over and over again, you keep blasting science only in terms of its derivatives, but never for its method.  This isn't about me "wanting a description" of anything.  I'm telling you what the actual definition is according to a dictionary reference, and how you have consistently failed to recognize that science is first and foremost a method. 

And do you know why you don't directly attack science as a method (even though you think you are)?  It's because you use the same method, albeit on a much more informal level, every day of your waking life.  It's called inductive reasoning.  Scientists use it, and you use it albeit on a much more informal level.

You need to learn that science is your friend.  Inductive reasoning can't provide you with comprehensive, absolute truths about the Universe, but without it you'd be a vegetable.

[BADecker]

The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.

Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.

You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.

Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support.  However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick.  There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.

See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.

Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.

Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.

Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.

There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.

If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.

There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.

*Facepalm*  

Again, you absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence.  This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.  

There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction.  Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.

Edit:  A note about evidence:  Evidence simply means "that which is apparent."  When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it.  That is it.  Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.  

Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence.  At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means.  That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.

Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.

Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.

But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.

In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

Think before you speak.  Here's what you're constantly missing, even though I already quoted this for you:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms:   branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
synonyms:   physics, chemistry, biology;

I emboldened three phrases.  The first phrase corresponds to a *method*.  The second two are derivatives, with the first derivative referring to various scientific disciplines, and the second referring to a set of knowledge.  If you want to see it in a tidier format, just type "science definition" into Google and see what pops up.

Your mistake is that, over and over again, you keep blasting science only in terms of its derivatives, but never for its method.  This isn't about me "wanting a description" of anything.  I'm telling you what the actual definition is according to a dictionary reference, and how you have consistently failed to recognize that science is first and foremost a method. 

And do you know why you don't directly attack science as a method (even though you think you are)?  It's because you use the same method, albeit on a much more informal level, every day of your waking life.  It's called inductive reasoning.  Scientists use it, and you use it albeit on a much more informal level.

You need to learn that science is your friend.  Inductive reasoning can't provide you with comprehensive, absolute truths about the Universe, but without it you'd be a vegetable.

Anybody can go look up what a dictionary says. What's the point? Words are constantly changing in meaning based on common usage. That's why we don't use a dictionary from the time of King James. That's why we have legal dictionaries that remain much in the meaning of the dictionaries at the time of the formation of the country, while popular dictionaries have words that look the same but often have a completely different meaning.

Why do you think that I attack science? How paranoid can you get? Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false. Many of the things of Evolution were even proven to be fraudulent. Sound familiar? Sounds like religion and government and politics in a lot of ways.

You seem to need to learn that strict science is YOUR friend. It is pointing you away from the foolish falsehoods of political "scientific" scammers, to the truth of the Bible, but by deductive reasoning. Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically. They will ALL have proven that Evolution is scientifically impossible. Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

[the joint]

The Bible is a clearly written record set down by witnesses.

Science has the record of nature which can be interpreted many ways. That's why things like the Theory of Evolution remain as theory (of course, since it has been proven wrong the many times it HAS been proven wrong, it shouldn't even be in the realm of "theory"). The scientists weren't there. They have no witnesses. The few that they would like to call witnesses, don't have the standing or the solidity of the Bible and Bible tradition backed by a nation like Israel.

You did not witness the "witnesses" who wrote the Bible, so that's more-or-less hearsay without (wait for it...) scientific evidence.

Then, you go denouncing science again which I'm sure you jump to any time any scientific paper claims Biblical support.  However, scientists not only transcribe what they witness, but they provide you with an exact method so that you can try to replicate the event for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

You really need to get off this "science is bad" shtick.  There is absolutely zero reason why science and religion must be mutually exclusive when they're both interested in the same thing, i.e. uncovering true knowledge.

See? That's the response that I would expect from someone who doesn't back up his definition of science with a scientific definition.

Science includes very duplicatable things, like the making of the sulphurized thermit that took down the Twin Towers.

Science also includes the hogwash ideas of Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe, and many others which are not duplicatable, or provable.

Now, it is not the scientists themselves mostly. It is the politicians among them, who often take on the name and role of "scientist" just so that they can further their political agenda.

There is no science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways other than those expressed by Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

The strength of Bible as history, and of the writers as witnesses, can be shown by the dedication of the people who passed on the Bible from generation to generation. It is also shown in the traditions of the Israel people that the Bible is truth. They don't acknowledge the Bible here and there. Rather, they acknowledge it in their everyday living, attempting to strictly follow the Laws of Moses that were written about 3500 years ago, because these laws are the reality of living for us all.

If you want a more "scientific" form evidence, check out Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's almost exactly the same as any of the later copies. That's as much as a 2,000 year separation. Such dedication is not preserved among any other religions, and is not being shown among the politics that moves science. The dedication exists because the Israel tradition is that it is reality.

There's a lot more that could be said that would strengthen the position of the Bible as truth. But this isn't the place for it. Search it out for yourself if you are interested.

*Facepalm*  

Again, you absolutely MUST distinguish between science as a method and science a body of evidence.  This is an elementary distinction that, for some reason, you're having an extraordinarily difficult time picking up on.  

There is no relevant response I can make until you understand this distinction.  Your misunderstanding of this distinction begins with your first sentence, thus rendering everything that follows as an abysmal understanding of scientific progress and how it compares to the pervasiveness of the Bible.

Edit:  A note about evidence:  Evidence simply means "that which is apparent."  When you go to the Bible for evidence, what "is apparent" is that there is a page with words on it.  That is it.  Seriously, that's where the buck stops, and you need to turn the authority over to scientists (e.g. anthropologists) to use the Scientific Method to search for additional evidence to support the Bible.  

Using the Bible in and of itself as evidence holds the same weight as grabbing Humpty Dumpty and using it as evidence.  At this point, it seems your understanding is worse than I thought, because you don't even know what evidence means.  That's pretty shocking, sorry to say.

Oh, neat. Now you want a description of science that distinguishes from another description of science. But you will find that the word has taken on all kinds of meanings among the different people, right down to stating that your electric range is science.

Isn't it time that you get off it and see the light? There is no/NO/NO science for things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. There is only evidence that can be interpreted many ways, including other than those expressing Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe. The scientists that do the actual work will agree - though some of them grudgingly.

If you picked up a book - a Bible - off the street, and you looked at it, you couldn't tell much of anything - ink on paper. But if you did a SCIENTIFIC study on everything pertaining to the Bible that you could find, you would find that the very existence of the Bible is one that is impossible. It can't exist as it is, except that it DOES exist. And I mean scientific in the way of investigation.

But if you don't know this about the Bible, then all the Bible will ever represent to you is some ink on paper. Scientific investigation of things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe produces scientific results that state that these things are inconclusive according to every method we have for testing them scientifically.

In other words, things like Evolution Theory, Big Bang, a 13 to 14 billion year old universe are real only in the minds of the people who want them to be real. The Bible, however, can be scientifically shown that its existence is impossible, yet we have it.

Think before you speak.  Here's what you're constantly missing, even though I already quoted this for you:

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms:   branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
synonyms:   physics, chemistry, biology;

I emboldened three phrases.  The first phrase corresponds to a *method*.  The second two are derivatives, with the first derivative referring to various scientific disciplines, and the second referring to a set of knowledge.  If you want to see it in a tidier format, just type "science definition" into Google and see what pops up.

Your mistake is that, over and over again, you keep blasting science only in terms of its derivatives, but never for its method.  This isn't about me "wanting a description" of anything.  I'm telling you what the actual definition is according to a dictionary reference, and how you have consistently failed to recognize that science is first and foremost a method. 

And do you know why you don't directly attack science as a method (even though you think you are)?  It's because you use the same method, albeit on a much more informal level, every day of your waking life.  It's called inductive reasoning.  Scientists use it, and you use it albeit on a much more informal level.

You need to learn that science is your friend.  Inductive reasoning can't provide you with comprehensive, absolute truths about the Universe, but without it you'd be a vegetable.

Anybody can go look up what a dictionary says. What's the point? Words are constantly changing in meaning based on common usage. That's why we don't use a dictionary from the time of King James. That's why we have legal dictionaries that remain much in the meaning of the dictionaries at the time of the formation of the country, while popular dictionaries have words that look the same but often have a completely different meaning.

Why do you think that I attack science? How paranoid can you get? Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false. Many of the things of Evolution were even proven to be fraudulent. Sound familiar? Sounds like religion and government and politics in a lot of ways.

You seem to need to learn that strict science is YOUR friend. It is pointing you away from the foolish falsehoods of political "scientific" scammers, to the truth of the Bible, but by deductive reasoning. Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically. They will ALL have proven that Evolution is scientifically impossible. Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

Uh...wow.

It's ludicrous that you actually started your post with:

Anybody can go look up what a dictionary says. What's the point? Words are constantly changing in meaning based on common usage.

You deserve a myriad facepalms.  Dictionaries exist as a means of unifying understanding of what words mean so that people can communicate.

Do you remember Bill Clinton during that TV interview?  If not, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

This is more-or-less where you're going.  Seriously?  You're going to claim that your imaginary, made-up interpretation of science is superior to dictionary references?   Why not just go ahead and challenge what the words "the" and "dictionary" mean while you're at it?

If you're going to attack a dictionary reference, then you leave yourself open to be challenged on *every single word in every single post you've ever made*.

The scientific method has exactly one method.  There is absolutely no deviating from the scientific method or it's no longer the scientific method.

So, to summarize yet again, science is first and foremost a method.  But, we can use the scientific method to explore various scientific fields (referring to the first derivative) to yield scientific theories (referring to the second derivative).

Let me repeat that.  We can use the scientific method to explore various scientific fields to yield scientific theories.

Now do you see how all three emboldened terms are distinct?  I'm sure you would agree that "scientific method" is not the same as "scientific fields" which are also not the same as "scientific theories."