I can prove God exists

[9sublime]

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.

Great point. I thought anyone trying to debate this topic would at least know this.

And just because DNA is complex, where it came from doesn't = creator. It = a gap in our knowledge. And its a primtive instinct for us humans to thrown a diety in there.

 

[numinus]

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.

I agree.

However, most people wish to argue evolution to its absurd limit, not realizing that it contradicts the laws of entropy.

Unless the various branches of natural science operate according to different and contradictory principles, the conclusion is inevitable.

 

[Questerr]

I agree.

However, most people wish to argue evolution to its absurd limit, not realizing that it contradicts the laws of entropy.

Unless the various branches of natural science operate according to different and contradictory principles, the conclusion is inevitable.

If your talking about the Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't contradict evolution. It says that entropy is unreducible in a closed system. Evolution, chemistry, and biology are not closed systems.

Thus they are not affected by that Law.

 

[Questerr]

I just thought of something...

I want to ask Invest a question:

Okay let's assume that transitional fossils don't exist like you say. So animals don't evolve and only microevolution exists. Science can however prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all animals did not exist at the same time, everyone one of them either came before or after another.

So are you saying that god magically created every animal species from dust over the billions of years that the Earth has been around, or are you denying the massive evidence from chemistry, physics, and geology that the Earth is immensely old?

How close to Biblical literalism are you trying to argue? My point is that if you can protest our science and evidence we should be able to do the same.

 

[invest07]

Questerr

My personal belief system is beyond the scope of discussion in this forum.

My contentions are:

1. DNA did not evolve. DNA was the result of intelligent design. It did not evolve because
2. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are so astronmically slim as to be laughable and
3. There is no other naturally occurring code/language in nature. All known codes and/or languages are the result of intelligence.

DNA exists, it is highly complex, and it got here through some means. If it did not (could not) evolve, it must have been the result of intelligent design.

And that is my proof for the existence of God.

I have placed all my reasoning, probability calculations, and facts on the table. Nothing I have presented in this forum is based on faith or Biblical doctrine. Everything I have presented here is based on verifiable facts.

It is curious to me that most of the skeptics question my beliefs rather than answering the questions I have raised.

So all of my cards are on the table. And how old I think the Earth is of no relevance to this discussion.

Try answering the questions I have raised. That is, if you can.

And, for your information, our universe IS a closed system. Unless you know of another universe that is exchanging energy with ours, then our universe is a closed system. And MacroE most certainly does violate the entropy laws of thermodynamics. (MacroE also violates the first law of biogenesis).

 

[Questerr]

Questerr

My personal belief system is beyond the scope of discussion in this forum.

My contentions are:

1. DNA did not evolve. DNA was the result of intelligent design. It did not evolve because
2. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are so astronmically slim as to be laughable and
3. There is no other naturally occurring code/language in nature. All known codes and/or languages are the result of intelligence.

DNA exists, it is highly complex, and it got here through some means. If it did not (could not) evolve, it must have been the result of intelligent design.

And that is my proof for the existence of God.

I have placed all my reasoning, probability calculations, and facts on the table. Nothing I have presented in this forum is based on faith or Biblical doctrine. Everything I have presented here is based on verifiable facts.

It is curious to me that most of the skeptics question my beliefs rather than answering the questions I have raised.

So all of my cards are on the table. And how old I think the Earth is of no relevance to this discussion.

Try answering the questions I have raised. That is, if you can.

I've tried answering all of the questions you've posed and you've shot every answer I've come up with down completely out of hand. How exactly am I supposed to respond to that?

If you really had an open mind, unclouded by religious fundamentalism, you could consider my points instead of just saying "no it doesn't work like that".

I've brought up multiple scenarios of how DNA could have evolved from simpler forms and how it did not need to be as complex as it is now for all of history.

You shot it down.

I've brought up the point that it doesn't matter what the probability of something happening after the fact is, that it only matters that a sequence occurs and that we need to understand the sequence. (a priori vs a posteriori argumentation)

You said you didn't understand it and ignored it.

I argued that since DNA is a natural code due the points I made previously that all other codes are natural regardless of source.

You simply said that DNA is un-natural and fell back on the unprobability argument that I disproved.

So what should my recourse be? You tell me?

I want to know what your alternative is. In science, if you attempt disprove something you must present a testable alternative theory. So therefore, your beliefs are within the spectrum of this thread.

I want to know your alternative to macroevolution.

I want to know how literaly you are taking the Bible.

I want to know if you believe, since macroevolution is impossible according to your already disproven arguments, that animals were simply "poofed" into existence after their predacessors died out.

Or do you deny the massive scientisfic proof that all species didn't co-exist and that the Earth is severl billion years old.

Anything else is intellectually corrupt and non-scientific, and you know it.

Edit: I'd also like to point in the illogical point about this being proof of God. As has been stated, proof of a negative is not proof of a positive. You make it sound as if God and evolution are the only two theories out there and that they're mutually exclusive, even though they aren't.

All you have done is (falsely) disproved DNA, not proof of evolution. Then you make an illogical leap of logic to that equals proof for the Christian God.

 

[PoliticalGrrrl]

If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. And, for all you atheists or agnostics out there, I will give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. So far no one has been able to do so. This is based on the writings of Perry Marshall, 2005.

I'm agnostic and I'm unsure why you want me (as an agnostic) to prove that you're wrong and in the end, agree with you that you have unequivocally proven that God exists? Agnostics don't claim that there IS NO God, they simply are unsure of His existence and question such. Quite different than atheists who believe that there IS NO God.

Regardless, if you are stating that

DNA is an encoding and decoding system. DNA is a language. DNA can be compared with computer programming. DNA is a code.

And DNA cannot have occurred naturally, without intelligent input.

... then how do you explain evolution? I'm simply saying that if DNA is indeed a code, a language and something that cannot occur naturally as you claim, then why the need for evolution?

Why would a God mess with coding and programming DNA into several thousand species of (forget humans for a moment) animals (in all forms) only to come to the point where we are now?

And in turn, why were humans not on this earth from the very beginning of time?

 

[9sublime]

PoliticalGrrrl, I can sense a religious cop-out coming on. Something along the lines, of 'God works in mysterious ways'.

 

[Bunz]

i think the real issue is, if god exsists or an actual heaven does as a result in believing in one particular god or another. All god exsistence of the major religions surrounds one passing into a heaven after they ultimately die.

Regardless of the reason. As long as they have agreed that person X or reason Y is the difference in going to heaven or hell. That is something they all have in common.

Am I the only one who sees right through this?

Religion is a mask. A mask for raising considerable amounts of wealth, and political power throughout history that these theories based on things that could not be explained at the time people had questions for. Why do we exsist? What put us here?

The truth is, we are probably a very rare occurance in a very large area of space. There is nothing at all similar to an even remote eco system that supports intelligent life, that humans are aware of.

Withholding conspiracy theories, Humans are the only creatures in the known world who are able to actually be able to be objectionable about the creation of thier exsistance and what happens to them after they die.

How did it happen? I dont have a good answer to that.
Could a superior power have made that happen? I dont know.

I do know this much. If a heaven exsists, only those who have passed away can confirm or deny heaven or hell's existence.
Once they have passed they are unable to spread that message among living people. I dont believe in ghosts.

Therefore, humankind, will never probably be able to agree on the existence of God, Heaven, Hell, or whose prophet were true, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, I guess I would consider myself an agnostic.

 

[invest07]

Questerr

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

If I understand your perhaps statement here, (translation of perhaps = speculation) then you seem to be saying DNA forced evolution to achieve a certain result. So is DNA the result of evolution or is evolution the result of DNA? And how exactly did all those 6 billion amino acids get into the right hole?

"-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.

Again, it seems that you are speculating about the same point raised above. DNA controls anatomy. Without DNA there is no anatomy. The information programmed into the DNA must have been present first. The anatomy then would follow based on the DNA programming. The anatomy would follow shortly, within the same generation.

If you have any support for either of these speculations in the form of research done, give me a web site.

"Why would simpler beings need such complex DNA?"

All of macraoevolutionary theory requires simpler organisms earlier in time. EColi is a "simple" one celled organism common today and it has 4 million base pairs on it's DNA (compared with 3 billion for humans). Even "simple" DNA is highly complex.

The forces driving macroevolution are random and unfocused. Mutations, which are the initiating event for every alleged evolutionary event, are 99.99% arbitrary, unpredictable and random.

A good demonstration of random mutations is at randommutations.com. Your carefully crafted phrase will mutate into gibberish very quickly.

As to some of my beliefs:
1. I don't know how old the earth or universe is. A Hebrew scholar whose work I have studied, Maimonides, calulated the age of the universe at 15 billion years. (He did this during the 12th century AD). Big Bangers estimate 12-16 billion years. Certainly the earth and the universe are billions of years old.
2. Microevolution and natural selection are real forces and can be observed both in the lab and in the natural world. They meet an important test of science in that they are verifiable.
3. The lack of transitional forms present in the fossil record tends to support the Biblical message that each species has it's time on earth and then extinction.
4. Macroevolution has never been demonstrated in the lab and has never been directly observed in the natural world. Macroevolution is speculative and has been based on wishful assumptions and conjecture, most of which can't be proven. Macroevolution fails an important test of science in that it is not verifiable. Macroevolution is speculation, unproven and not a fact.
5. I accept the existence of God by faith and and by circumstantial evidence. Since the existence of God can't be proven or disproven by science, how you interpret the world and the existence of God is your personal opinion and neither is scientific. If you deny the existence of God you also do so based on your interpretation of circumstantial evidence.
6. The universe and everything in it are the creation of God (YHWH).
7. Macroevolution has been under intense scutiny for several years now. The holes in macroevolution are substantial and the number of holes in growing every day. Many of these holes are fundamental in nature and can't be explained away as "Gaps in knowledge". The evidence disputing MacroE is coming in daily from every discipline of science. Two web sites containing the names of respected and responsible people of science who dispute MacroE are dissentfromdarwing and doctorsdissentingdarwin. Academia accepts MacroE as gospel but there is far less support in the broader scientific community.
8. MacroE voilates the Entropy Law of Thermodynamics. Darwin apologists insist this is not true and have contorted physics so as to present this appearance. Before you make up your mind on this, ask a physicist if there are any exceptions to this law.
9. MacroE violates the First Law of Biogenesis.

There are 6 billion amino acids on the human DNA molecule, all of which are in a highly precise sequence and location. If DNA is not the result of God, how did they all get there?

 

[invest07]

Bunz and PolitcalGrrrl

There are 4 possible beliefs about God:
1. God exists.
2. God doesn't exist.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't care.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Therefore the only belief system on the list above that can be supported by science is #3.

Stephen Hawking says he is agnostic. Einstein seemed to be a believer sometimes and other times agnostic.

 

[invest07]

For all you God Deniers that are convinced I am some sort of religious wack job, here a few quotes from recognized people who say the same thing I do:

Macroevolution as theory and not fact

1. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." Sir Arthur Keith, author of the foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species.

2. "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

3. "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

4. "[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . " Michael Denton, molecular biologist.

5. “If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore.” Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin.

6. “The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

7. “For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14

8. “Evolution is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." Ernst Mayr, longtime professor of biology at Harvard.

Lack of transitional fossils

9. “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.

10. David Raup, curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago):
"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

11. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
Stephen Jay Gould. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters“ 1977.

12. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters“ 1977.

13. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee

On the personal bias of Darwinistas

14. “Scientists should behave as scientists and be willing to question their own assumptions and meet criticism with reasoned debate rather than with insult, caricature, and appeals to authority. Skepticism is science's most valuable tool; its absence among too many advocates of Darwinian evolution suggests that something other than science is driving their beliefs.” Bruce Thompson, professor, Cal State Fresno

 

[PoliticalGrrrl]

Transitional fossils don't exist? Really.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Part 1A

Copyright © 1994-1997 by Kathleen Hunt

I'll be back after dinner to discuss this further.

Actually, it's after dinner and after grading some papers, I am sort of drained. If you'd be so kind as to peruse what I've linked to and give me your thoughts? I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you at length possibly tomorrow?

 

[Popeye]

Bunz and PolitcalGrrrl

There are 4 possible beliefs about God:
1. God exists.
2. God doesn't exist.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't care.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Therefore the only belief system on the list above that can be supported by science is #3.

Stephen Hawking says he is agnostic. Einstein seemed to be a believer sometimes and other times agnostic.

I am an agnostic myself. I'm in some excellent company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics​

 

[vyo476]

I am an agnostic myself.

As am I.