I can prove God exists

[numinus]

Nah I have a life where I do things outside of the internet. I guarantee you I didn't give you or your bogus metaphysical opinions a single thought while I was away. Your not that important.

I'm sure you have a life outside the internet, as does everyone. So run along and leave the intelligent discussion to the grown ups.

 

[numinus]

I don't need to. Read Hume, Dawkins or a library of other great thinkers if you'd like to see Aquinas's work reduced to the bull**** that it is.

There is a difference between reading and comprehending. Your posts make that painfully obvious.

 

[numinus]

One thing is sure. There is a **** load of verbose sophistry going on in this thread.

There are a precious few who have minds capable of doing higher math and physics. You need not berate yourself unnecessarily.

 

[numinus]

That's pretty much why I ducked out of this thread myself.

That's a good thing, seeing as you are incapable of adding anything to the discussion.

 

[invest07]

God deniers vs Believers

Another point I am attempting to make in this forum is that there is a huge difference in the way Atheists and Believers perceive science.

We all bring our own presuppositions to the table. Those presuppositions affect the way we interpret data. One huge difference between Believers who have studied science and God deniers is that believers, like myself, have looked at both sides, with an open mind. God deniers have looked at only one side with a closed mind to the other side.

It is easier for me to understand where a God Denier is coming from than for the reverse to occur because I have studied both sides.

I believe there is room on the science table for MacroEvolution to be taught. God Deniers don't believe there is room at the table for ID.

I understand why MacroEgans believe as they do. Because they assume God does not exist, then the hypothesis of Evolution, however flawed, MUST BE TRUE. There is no other choice, within the belief system of Atheists. Once you place limits on your brain, once you restrain your brain with a fence, then your belief system must be similarly restrained, to only the area within the fence.

So regardless of mountains of evidence to the contrary, you MUST defend an unproven hypothesis. It becomes a stick your head in the sand scenario. MacroE MUST be true and to hell with any evidence that is contradictory.

And that is why you God Deniers must attack the messenger of an opposing thought. This is why ID must be classified as "unscientific" and the work of religious zealots.

I studied MacroEvolution for years and then I studied ID. ID answered my questions while MacroE left too many questions unanswered. I examined both ID and MacroE with an open mind and my brain told me ID made more sense.

Too bad you God Deniers have placed self imposed limits on your thinking. And you God Deniers claim you are open minded and free thinkers.

Yeah, right.

 

[invest07]

Army
I sorry I missed all that crap about Genetic Algorithms.
I didn't know that MacroEvolution had computers and analyzed algorithms.
I just thought a mutation occurred, then Natural Selection took over and environmental conditions determined whether or not the mutation will survive.
I didn't know that the mutation sat down at a keyboard and crunched the numbers and decided whether to live on or die out after the first generation.

 

[invest07]

gtanner79

There is a growing body of scientists who reject most or all aspects of macroEvolution. This is an exciting and rapidly growing phenomenon because it is allowing people of science who dissent from the scientific establishment a voice. The scientific establishment doesn't like to be challenged.

You might want to check out dissentfromdarwin and doctorsdissentingdarwin.
The first site has several hundred PHD's in science who reject MacroEvolution.

I believe there is a spot at the table of science for MacroE and for ID. It is the Darwinistas who demand exclusivity. It is the MacroEgans who have joined the scientific establishment and have placed fences to restrict their thinking.

 

[invest07]

coyote

For my contention it does not matter whether or not evolution is linear, behaves in spurts or a geometric progression. It may move according to the law of squares or an inverse square manner. There is still nowhere near enough time.

Gould was aware that time was a problem when he wrote his Punctuated Equilibrium paper. PE was his answer to the time problem and also to the lack of transitional forms. This was a rehash of saltation theories, which were in direct opposition to gradualism.

PE or gradualism, arithmetic or geometric, squared, cubed, ad infinitum.

IT DON'T MATTER. AIN'T NUFF TIME.

 

[ArmChair General]

Another point I am attempting to make in this forum is that there is a huge difference in the way Atheists and Believers perceive science.

We all bring our own presuppositions to the table. Those presuppositions affect the way we interpret data. One huge difference between Believers who have studied science and God deniers is that believers, like myself, have looked at both sides, with an open mind. God deniers have looked at only one side with a closed mind to the other side.

It is easier for me to understand where a God Denier is coming from than for the reverse to occur because I have studied both sides.

I believe there is room on the science table for MacroEvolution to be taught. God Deniers don't believe there is room at the table for ID.

I understand why MacroEgans believe as they do. Because they assume God does not exist, then the hypothesis of Evolution, however flawed, MUST BE TRUE. There is no other choice, within the belief system of Atheists. Once you place limits on your brain, once you restrain your brain with a fence, then your belief system must be similarly restrained, to only the area within the fence.

So regardless of mountains of evidence to the contrary, you MUST defend an unproven hypothesis. It becomes a stick your head in the sand scenario. MacroE MUST be true and to hell with any evidence that is contradictory.

And that is why you God Deniers must attack the messenger of an opposing thought. This is why ID must be classified as "unscientific" and the work of religious zealots.

I studied MacroEvolution for years and then I studied ID. ID answered my questions while MacroE left too many questions unanswered. I examined both ID and MacroE with an open mind and my brain told me ID made more sense.

Too bad you God Deniers have placed self imposed limits on your thinking. And you God Deniers claim you are open minded and free thinkers.

Yeah, right.

Translated into Gangsta:


God pimp vs Nigga
Nigga point I am attempt'n ta makes in this forum is tizzle there is a huge difference in tha way Atheists n Believa perceive science.

We all bring our own presupposizzles ta tha table in tha mutha ****in club. Those presupposizzles affect tha way we interpret data from tha streets of tha L-B-C. One huge difference between Believa who hizzle studied science n God poser is that believa, like myself, hizzle looked at bizzy sides, wit an open mind. God brotha have looked at only one side wit a closed mind ta tha pimp side now mother****ers lemme here ya say hoe.

It is cracka fo` me ta understand where a God Playa is com'n F-R-to-tha-izzom tizzle fo` tha reverse ta occur coz I have studied both sides.

I believe there is rizzy on tha science table fo` MacroEvolizzles ta be taught cuz this is how we do it. God Denia don't believe there is room at tha table fo` ID.

I understand why MacroEgans believe as tizzle do. Coz they assume God does not exist, tizzle tha hypothizzles of Evolution, nigga flawed, MUST BE TRUE . Listen to how a mother****er flow ****. There is no ***** choice, witin tha belief system of Atheists so bow down to the bow wow. Once you place limits on yo brain, once you restrain yo brain wit a fence, thizzay yo belief system miznust be similarly restrained, ta only tha area witin tha fence.

So regardless of mountains of evidence ta tha contrary, you MUST defend an unproven hypothizzles. It becomes a stizzay yo heezee in tha sand scenario. MacroE MUST be true n ta hell wit any evidence thiznat is contradictory.

And T-H-to-tha-izzat is why you God Brotha mizzay attack tha messenga of an oppos'n thought . Freak y'all, into the beat y'all. This is why ID must be classified as "unscientific" n tha work of religious zealots . It dont stop till the wheels fall off.

I studied MacroEvolizzle fo` years n then I studied ID. ID answered mah questions while MacroE left too many questions unanswered . Listen to how a mother****er flow ****. I examined bizzy ID n MacroE wit an open mind n mah brain told me ID made mizzle sense upside yo head.

Too bad you God Gangsta hizzle placed self imposed limits on yo blingin'. And you God Denia claim you is open minded n free playa.

Yeah, right.

 

[Coyote]

Army
I sorry I missed all that crap about Genetic Algorithms.
I didn't know that MacroEvolution had computers and analyzed algorithms.
I just thought a mutation occurred, then Natural Selection took over and environmental conditions determined whether or not the mutation will survive.
I didn't know that the mutation sat down at a keyboard and crunched the numbers and decided whether to live on or die out after the first generation.

You are using numbers to make your proof.

You have problems with others using numbers to make their point?

 

[Coyote]

coyote

For my contention it does not matter whether or not evolution is linear, behaves in spurts or a geometric progression. It may move according to the law of squares or an inverse square manner. There is still nowhere near enough time.

Gould was aware that time was a problem when he wrote his Punctuated Equilibrium paper. PE was his answer to the time problem and also to the lack of transitional forms. This was a rehash of saltation theories, which were in direct opposition to gradualism.

PE or gradualism, arithmetic or geometric, squared, cubed, ad infinitum.

IT DON'T MATTER. AIN'T NUFF TIME.

Except there are transitional forms.

 

[Coyote]

We all bring our own presuppositions to the table. Those presuppositions affect the way we interpret data. One huge difference between Believers who have studied science and God deniers is that believers, like myself, have looked at both sides, with an open mind. God deniers have looked at only one side with a closed mind to the other side.

Not at all. We look at any side that can be validated by the scientific method. Involving a deity means you require a major pre-supposition to begin with - belief in a supernatural life form that can not be proved by scientific means. Evolution occurs - that is not in doubt. There is evidence all around us every day. There are gaps, and inconsitencies and uncertainties as to the exact mechanics but there is too much supporting evidence to simply scrap it and insert a deity. You ignore that evidence and base your entire "proof" on mathmatics -linear mathmatics.

 

[invest07]

coyote

"You have problems with others using numbers to make their point?"
No problemo with others using math. Army just cites a web site and makes no analysis whatsoever of how it is relevant. He demonstrates no understanding of the site and may have none.

"Except there are transitional forms."
There are a few and many of those are disputed by peers. And those that appear to be in transition may be better explained by other means. We should be rolling in genuine transitional forms that are undisputed. We should have so many transitional fossils that transitions would be undisputable. And we ain't. This is a serious embarassment to Darwinistas. Read Gould if you want to realize how big this problem really is. You have said on more than one occasion that lack of evidence is not evidence. So doesn't an absence of transition forms mean an absence of "evidence" for transitions?

"belief in a supernatural life form that can not be proved by scientific means."
And that science also can't disprove. If you believe in God or reject the existence of God, neither position is based on science. MacroE is based on the assumption that life arose without a creator, which also can't be proven. It can be debated but never proven.

"Evolution occurs - that is not in doubt"
No argument from me on this point, so long as you are referring to MICRO evolution. Macroevolution is a hypothesis that is based on several unproven assumptions. (Such as mistakes can result in higher levels of order, coyotes turn into whales, humans started out as volcanic ventlings, inorganic chemicals somehow sprang to life, 6 billion chemicals magically arrange themselves in the right hole on Human DNA).

What you call evidence is really an interpretation of data. The data by itself is evidence of nothing. Should your interpretation of the data prove faulty, the data does not change. Only the interpretation has been proven wrong.

"there is too much supporting evidence to simply scrap it and insert a deity"
Again you are confusing interpretation of data with evidence. There is reluctance by the scientific establishment to abandon any hypothesis once it has been accepted. Many in the medical/scientific community refused to believe in germs because they couldn't see them. Many people of science accepted the Greek concept of geocentricity until telescopes and mathematics demostrated the falsity of this concept. Should any interpretation of data prove false, the data does not change.

coyote, I suggest you take criticisms of the hypothesis of macroevolution more seriously. The truly scientific mind is skeptical of everything and always willing to examine any new evidence. The truly scientific mind is always open and does not rule out any possible answer, but rather weighs each possible answer in probabilities of correctness. It was Galilieo and Copernicus and Walter Read that challenged the scientific establishment with new data that was initially laughed at and rejected by that establishment. And, in the long run, they were proven right.

"You ignore that evidence and base your entire "proof" on mathmatics -linear mathmatics."For the 4th time, my contention is that MacroE does not have to behave in a linear manner. My math does not assume linearity in any manner. My math simply says:

1. All 6 billion amino acids in human DNA got to their right slot by some method.
2. There are 4 to the 6 billionth power of possible combinations of amino acids on the human DNA molecule.
3. Since Macroevolution relies on random and unfocused energy (translation: no intelligence) the number of mutation/mistakes necessary to arrange all the 6 billion amino acids in their right slot is astronomical. (see #2 above)
4. MacroE requires DNA or a predecessor to have begun somewhere around 1 billion years ago.
5. So how many random tries must MacroE make, on the average, each year, to wind up with all 6 billion in the right slot, within 1 billion years? Is the result plausible?

There is nowhere near enough time. My math simply estimates the size of the job and divides that task by the time allotted, to arrive at an average rate of progress that would be needed to complete the task in the allotted time.

My proof also relies on the fact that there are no codes/languges that can be demonstrated as arising naturally. Every code/language known to man has required intelligence.

So coyote, if my math is flawed, show me your math.

 

[Questerr]

And that science also can't disprove. If you believe in God or reject the existence of God, neither position is based on science. MacroE is based on the assumption that life arose without a creator, which also can't be proven. It can be debated but never proven.

That's an incorrect assumption. Evolution says nothing of a creator existing or not. What it denies is that life was simply created by magic from the dust of the earth. Evolution doesn't say there is not God, it explains the natural medium and mechanics by which God allowed life to come into existence.

God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Questerr]

1. All 6 billion amino acids in human DNA got to their right slot by some method.
2. There are 4 to the 6 billionth power of possible combinations of amino acids on the human DNA molecule.
3. Since Macroevolution relies on random and unfocused energy (translation: no intelligence) the number of mutation/mistakes necessary to arrange all the 6 billion amino acids in their right slot is astronomical. (see #2 above)
4. MacroE requires DNA or a predecessor to have begun somewhere around 1 billion years ago.
5. So how many random tries must MacroE make, on the average, each year, to wind up with all 6 billion in the right slot, within 1 billion years? Is the result plausible?

There is nowhere near enough time. My math simply estimates the size of the job and divides that task by the time allotted, to arrive at an average rate of progress that would be needed to complete the task in the allotted time.

My proof also relies on the fact that there are no codes/languges that can be demonstrated as arising naturally. Every code/language known to man has required intelligence.

So coyote, if my math is flawed, show me your math.

Just to point out examples of why using straight math like this may be flawed, and I am no expert or scientist, but I think that your equations deny the chemistry and biology factors invovled:

-Perhaps certain chemical reactions are impossible with any different DNA sequence and thus had to evolve in such a way.

-Most definately certain anatomical features require certain DNA combinations so why could DNA have not evolved concurrently with anatomy instead of consequtively like you say it had to. Why would simpler beings need such complex DNA?

And like I pointed out with my qoutes, you are looking at the situation from hind sight. It doesn't matter that a specific code emerged, it matters that a code emerged. From top to bottom, ignoring possible circumstances, the possiblity is very low, in fact nearly impossible. But from bottom to top, they probability shouldn't matter since each change is taken in turn, not taken in all at once.