I can prove God exists

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yep. We do not have an energy problem. It is just plain stupid that people prefer fossil fuel than this amazing form of energy.
What patent nonsense!

Wait a minute, Num, you just said that you can't patent nonsense. You can't have it both ways.
This is fairly new technology and it will take sometime to become accepted (you are living proof of the difficulty of introducing new technology to people) and for industry to tool-up for production.

I dismiss your post as IRRELEVANT TO THERMODYNAMICS. How can it if you cannot even say the TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN THE ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM attributed to your foam?

I can't tell you how much Yak manure is deposited yearly on the Plains of Rapshu either. And your request is just Yak manure. Potential energy won't heat up the solar system. Sorry if you can't be bothered to read up on the subject.

Your 'foam' might as well be that frothing substance coming from your mouth and it STILL would be irrelevant in the discussion. Go waste robeph's time discussing 'foam' and the equally ridiculous 'structures of spacetime' some place else.

Tee hee, You're so incoherent when you're angry. You sound like the folks that refused to learn about quantum physics, they just dismissed it because it was outside of their Newtonian paradigm. It's okay, Num, nobody can keep up on all the advances.

 

[numinus]

Wait a minute, Num, you just said that you can't patent nonsense. You can't have it both ways.
This is fairly new technology and it will take sometime to become accepted (you are living proof of the difficulty of introducing new technology to people) and for industry to tool-up for production.

Apparently, you have an exclusive patent on nonsense.

I can't tell you how much Yak manure is deposited yearly on the Plains of Rapshu either. And your request is just Yak manure. Potential energy won't heat up the solar system. Sorry if you can't be bothered to read up on the subject.

LMAO

So how is that relevant to THERMOdynamics, if, by your admission, it isn't generating heat, hmmm?

And while you're on the subject of foam, what kind of potential energy is that - gravitational potential, electric potential, magnetic potential, mechanical potential....??

Tee hee, You're so incoherent when you're angry. You sound like the folks that refused to learn about quantum physics, they just dismissed it because it was outside of their Newtonian paradigm. It's okay, Num, nobody can keep up on all the advances.

I learn just fine. You on the other hand, have serious comprehension issues, well beyond foolishness.

Theoretically, ALL MATTER IS ENERGY. Notice E=mc^2, the direct relationship of matter and energy, c^2 being its proportionality constant used to convert kilograms to joules. (Don't bother asking robeph since he is clueless on conversion of units).There it is, unlimited energy. No need for foam, unless you wish to lubricate some part of your anatomy.

As for your invention, notice the expression for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2? And, isn't heat energy the total kinetic energy of the individual molecules in a thing?

Now, would you mind telling me how you can generate energy without some form of motion, hmmm?

 

[invest07]

The proof for God

Thanks for all the posts on this topic. When I started this forum I figured it would die after 5 or 6 views and now it is over 2,000.

Here is summary of my contentions and the reason I beleive these verifyt the existence of God:

1. DNA is a code language. Information is encoded in the sequence of the 3 biillon base pairs of human DNA. Replication of the DNA molecule involves decoding the information.

2. Human DNA is extermely complex. 3 billion base pairs and 6 billion complex chemicals. Arranged into 23 chromosomes and 1 billion codons. Able to control the production of well over 1,000 proteins and enzymes. So far, no one in this forum has proposed a plausible mechanism that allows 6 billion complex chemicals to be arranged in a precise sequence without intelligence.

3. Every code or language known to man required intelligence.

4. There are NO KNOWN EXAMPLES of naturally occurring codes or languages. A chemical reaction is not an example of a code as there is no encoding or decoding involved. Water running downhill is not an example of a code/language as water is behaving according to natural laws. Regardless of coyote's ramblings, she has not named a single code/language that occurred naturally. Regardless of robeph's chemical pseudo science, he has yet to propose any plausible method for 6 billion chemicals to arrange themselves in precise sequence.

5. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that DNA required intelligence and that requires a designer.

There is no smoking gun here. There is no flash of light from the sky. There is a reasonable argument to be made for the existence of God. It is scientifically defensible and logical. You may not agree with my conclusion.

So be it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Apparently, you have an exclusive patent on nonsense.LMAO So how is that relevant to THERMOdynamics, if, by your admission, it isn't generating heat, hmmm? And while you're on the subject of foam, what kind of potential energy is that - gravitational potential, electric potential, magnetic potential, mechanical potential....??
I learn just fine. You on the other hand, have serious comprehension issues, well beyond foolishness. Theoretically, ALL MATTER IS ENERGY. Notice E=mc^2, the direct relationship of matter and energy, c^2 being its proportionality constant used to convert kilograms to joules. (Don't bother asking robeph since he is clueless on conversion of units).There it is, unlimited energy. No need for foam, unless you wish to lubricate some part of your anatomy. As for your invention, notice the expression for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2? And, isn't heat energy the total kinetic energy of the individual molecules in a thing? Now, would you mind telling me how you can generate energy without some form of motion, hmmm?

Actually, it appears to be torsional energy (referring to spin in the 4th dimension and it is this spin in different axis that allows it to be expressed as various forms of energy) and it is expressed in a number of ways depending on how it enters our 3 dimensional Universe. It apparently can be any one of the forms of energy you mentioned--just as electricity and magnetism are aspects of the same underlying energy.

If you had actually READ the website I posted you wouldn't have to ask how one can produce energy without motion (or at least "apparent" motion). Just because the electrical panel in your house has no moving parts unless you are flipping the switches, it still would appear to be producing power to someone who was unfamiliar with hydro-electric dams. This same concept applies, the machine Bearden and his team made has no moving parts, but it does plug into the limitless power contained in the quantum foam or the 4th dimension (Maxwell didn't consider time to be the 4th dimension as many people do today). All of the people working on this procees independently came up with their own names for the power. What one calls it is not really important, is it? Eventually we will settle on a common term. The trick right now is to get the general population to understand that it IS possible to extract this power in usable quantities with equipment that is currently available.

Just as Newton would have had a hard time believing in atomic power, so to will people like yourself have a hard time accepting what appears to be free energy. Don't feel bad, Num, lots of scientists go to their graves without ever accepting new information that rearranges their beloved paradigm. Change is hard, it often requires work and study, and always a reforming of comfortable mental pathways.

This can be a very positive thing if we don't use this power for bigger and better weapons. It's clean, universally available, and cheap, we could restore our ecosystems and eliminate poverty. We could develop REAL civilization without the endless violence that we visit on ourselves and all the other lifeforms on this planet.

 

[vyo476]

Here is summary of my contentions and the reason I beleive these verifyt the existence of God:

1. DNA is a code language. Information is encoded in the sequence of the 3 biillon base pairs of human DNA. Replication of the DNA molecule involves decoding the information.

2. Human DNA is extermely complex. 3 billion base pairs and 6 billion complex chemicals. Arranged into 23 chromosomes and 1 billion codons. Able to control the production of well over 1,000 proteins and enzymes. So far, no one in this forum has proposed a plausible mechanism that allows 6 billion complex chemicals to be arranged in a precise sequence without intelligence.

3. Every code or language known to man required intelligence.

4. There are NO KNOWN EXAMPLES of naturally occurring codes or languages. A chemical reaction is not an example of a code as there is no encoding or decoding involved. Water running downhill is not an example of a code/language as water is behaving according to natural laws. Regardless of coyote's ramblings, she has not named a single code/language that occurred naturally. Regardless of robeph's chemical pseudo science, he has yet to propose any plausible method for 6 billion chemicals to arrange themselves in precise sequence.

5. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that DNA required intelligence and that requires a designer.

Basically your point is...information plus lack of information plus lack of information equals conclusion. This is not logic; it relies on the assumption that we will never discover any other naturally occurring codes. You cannot prove that we never will since that would require knowledge of the unknown; you can simply point out that it is "unlikely." This does not constitute proof. It constitutes a belief; but not proof.

 

[invest07]

vyo476

You can clean all this up right now and prove my contention false simply by giving us a plausible explanation of how those 6 billion complex chemicals arranged themselves into the proper slot. So far no one in this forum has.

You can also prove my contention wrong by citing a naturally occurring code or language. None exist but you are free to try.

Until you point out a naturally occurring code or language (any code that can be demonstrated as requiring no intelligence), then the smart money is on the bird in the hand.

Outside of mathematics, there are NO absolute proofs of anything. You consider the preponderance of existing evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion.

Some people of science consider a probability of 1 in 1,000,000 as indication that an event is effectively impossible. The probability of 6,000,000,000 complex chemicals arranging themselves in the proper sequence is trillions of times smaller than 1 in a million.

Using your "lack of evidence is no evidence" logic, then you can't rule out the existence of:

• UFO's
• Bigfoot
• Ghosts
• The Loch Ness Monster

So, vyo, which of the above list do you believe in? Remember, since there is no definitive proof any of these don't exist, then you can't rule out any of the above. I guess you must believe a Bigfoot may be out there somewhere cuz there ain’t no proof there ain’t no Bigfoot.

“People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results.”
David C. Bolton, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biology, New York State Institute for Basic Research

So disprove my contention, vyo. Come on coyote. robeph, let me have your best shot. Prove me wrong. So far you haven’t. I have demonstrated a serious flaw in your precious religion of Macroevolution. Show me the light. Prove my contentions are wrong. I mean, I must be wrong. I can't be right, can I?

“ A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproven and is discarded”. Naturalistic Evolution has sufficient flaws to be discarded except that the alternative is too terrible for God Deniers to acknowledge. I mean, we just can’t even acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God. That means our lives might have some purpose and that there might be higher values than the values we humans create. That means we might have to answer for our actions and we just don’t want to do that. So we continue to patch up the holes in Macroevolution and hope something better comes along before the MacroE ship sinks.

Face the truth, vyo. You MUST believe in MacroEvolution because you don’t want to believe in God. The alternative to MacroE is just too scary. So regardless of how many logical, mathemaical and scientific problems with MacroE, you must embrace it.

Your belief system is based less on a belief and more on a rejection of the alternative.

 

[vyo476]

You can clean all this up right now and prove my contention false simply by giving us a plausible explanation of how those 6 billion complex chemicals arranged themselves into the proper slot. So far no one in this forum has.

You can also prove my contention wrong by citing a naturally occurring code or language. None exist but you are free to try.

I can't. I'm not a scientist. And neither are you.

Until you point out a naturally occurring code or language (any code that can be demonstrated as requiring no intelligence), then the smart money is on the bird in the hand.

Once upon a time the same thing could be said, using your logic, of the "theory" of the world being flat - or the Earth being the center of the universe.

Outside of mathematics, there are NO absolute proofs of anything. You consider the preponderance of existing evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion.

But you're not examining the existing evidence. You're examining the lack of existing evidence. There is a difference.

Using your "lack of evidence is no evidence" logic, then you can't rule out the existence of:

• UFO's
• Bigfoot
• Ghosts
• The Loch Ness Monster

So, vyo, which of the above list do you believe in? Remember, since there is no definitive proof any of these don't exist, then you can't rule out any of the above. I guess you must believe a Bigfoot may be out there somewhere cuz there ain’t no proof there ain’t no Bigfoot.

You're right, I can't disprove any of those things. Neither can you. If you're trying to make me look foolish by making me admit that I can't disprove the existence of Bigfoot, you might want to be able to do it yourself first.

So disprove my contention, vyo. Come on coyote. robeph, let me have your best shot. Prove me wrong. So far you haven’t. I have demonstrated a serious flaw in your precious religion of Macroevolution. Show me the light. Prove my contentions are wrong. I mean, I must be wrong. I can't be right, can I?

You've demonstrated that we don't know everything. We're willing to admit that we don't know everything. Are you? And before you answer that, you might want to look up "hubris."

“ A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproven and is discarded”. Naturalistic Evolution has sufficient flaws to be discarded except that the alternative is too terrible for God Deniers to acknowledge. I mean, we just can’t even acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God. That means our lives might have some purpose and that there might be higher values than the values we humans create. That means we might have to answer for our actions and we just don’t want to do that. So we continue to patch up the holes in Macroevolution and hope something better comes along before the MacroE ship sinks.

Our lives might have some purpose?

Oh, boy. Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Fine, god-boy, riddle me this.

I grew up with a woman who is affectively paraplegic. She has Multiple Sclerosis. She's a wonderful person - giving, caring, she even believes in your buddy God. I've watched her humanity wither away for my entire life. She can't even roll over in bed anymore. She's completely and totally miserable and there's nothing I can do to help her. So why doesn't your God, huh? She believes in him, yet he isn't doing anything.

And don't you dare give me that "God works in mysterious ways" crap. It's just a cop out.

Face the truth, vyo. You MUST believe in MacroEvolution because you don’t want to believe in God. The alternative to MacroE is just too scary. So regardless of how many logical, mathemaical and scientific problems with MacroE, you must embrace it.

Or maybe you just have to believe in God because the thought that you might be on your own, that your life is your own responsibility, is just too much for you to bear. So when you think you've found a flaw in evolutionary theory you go running back to the Bible - a book wrought with inconsistancy itself.

Your belief system is based less on a belief and more on a rejection of the alternative.

And your belief system is based on extreme arrogance. Look to thine own self Invest.

 

[Questerr]

...

vyo476

You can clean all this up right now and prove my contention false simply by giving us a plausible explanation of how those 6 billion complex chemicals arranged themselves into the proper slot. So far no one in this forum has.

But that's just it: they don't have a "proper slot". I've been reading entries on the EvC forums (evcforum.net), that's why I haven't responded to this in a while. On EvC actual scientists and science major regularly post information (to include the scientific formulae) backing evolution.

One of the more recent posts I saw had a very interesting piece of information in it: a gene can have up to 60% or more variation in its sequence and not have a noticeable result in an organism. In addition, much of the DNA code is full of junk chemical sequences that don't do anything.

But that is not the most important thing that I read: DNA can go through what is called a transposition error (or something like that, I would have to email EvC again to get clarification). This means that the sequence can be out of order, yet still have the same effect of it being coded in order.

Your assumptions about the probability and order of genes is false.

Genes can be out of order and still work, the probability changes, and evolution becomes more viable.

If you need the real numbers, I can post your suspositions on EvC and let them tear them apart with actual numbers and repost them hear if you'd like.

You can also prove my contention wrong by citing a naturally occurring code or language. None exist but you are free to try.

DNA is a naturally occuring code.

Until you point out a naturally occurring code or language (any code that can be demonstrated as requiring no intelligence), then the smart money is on the bird in the hand.

How about the research being done that shows that Dolphins have a rather complex language. Sure, they have a degree of intelligence, but their intelligence developed through evolution.

Thus it is natural.

Some people of science consider a probability of 1 in 1,000,000 as indication that an event is effectively impossible. The probability of 6,000,000,000 complex chemicals arranging themselves in the proper sequence is trillions of times smaller than 1 in a million.

Remember that post I made from the skeptic report about probability not mattering? Remember how it said the chances of drawing a specific sequence of cards from a deck is 2 x 10 to the 41 power -to-1?

Probability of an event after the fact doesn't matter. Only the fact that it occured matters. After something happens, its chances of happening become 1 to 1.

The chances of DNA evolving is 1 to 1, because it happened.

Big numbers may look impressive, but they don't neccessarily actually mean anything.

Using your "lack of evidence is no evidence" logic, then you can't rule out the existence of:

• UFO's
• Bigfoot
• Ghosts
• The Loch Ness Monster

So, vyo, which of the above list do you believe in? Remember, since there is no definitive proof any of these don't exist, then you can't rule out any of the above. I guess you must believe a Bigfoot may be out there somewhere cuz there ain’t no proof there ain’t no Bigfoot.

1. This is a strawman, there is plenty of evidence out there for evolution. DNA is only part of it.
2. No, we cannot definativly prove there is not a Bigfoot or UFO's. There is a strong case against them existing, enough that a sane, logical person would deny their existence, but we can't outright prove they don't exist.

I'll break this next section down piece by piece. BTW, your arrogance is stunning.

“ A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproven and is discarded”. Naturalistic Evolution has sufficient flaws to be discarded except that the alternative is too terrible for God Deniers to acknowledge.

A. I believe in God. I don't believe in your God. I am not a God denier. I also acknowledge that I have no proof that my God exists, and I'm fine with that. What I believe with my God have nothing to do with anyone else, so therefore I don't give a crap about proof.

B. Evolution does have missing information and massive amounts of proof. The entire natural world contains something that helps prove evolution. If evolution had as many flaws as you claim, scientists wouldn't believe in it.

Ow, wait that's right: In science, when there's a flaw in a theory, you don't discard all the parts of a theory that are flawed, you just discard that flawed parts and find something that works and has evidence. That is what they are doing with evolution.

Christian Creationism has no proof beyond a single, non-independently verified book. In my mind, a small amount of natural, evaluated, scientifically confirmed proof is better than none at all.

I mean, we just can’t even acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God.

I acknowledge God, as do many scientists. Just not your God. My God is omnipotent enough and competant enough to create a universe through natural processes alone.

Your God has to magically "poof" everything into existence.

That means our lives might have some purpose and that there might be higher values than the values we humans create. That means we might have to answer for our actions and we just don’t want to do that.

My morality and purpose comes from something beyond a book a mythology. I'm considered a very good, levelheaded, and moral person by everyone I know and I don't need religion to do it. I was raised right and taught my values by my family.

Right there is the true source of values and morality: family and society. Not God.

As for answering for my actions, I don't know what will happen to me after I die, but I know it will be appropriate to the way I act in life, so therefore, I am a good person.

Face the truth, vyo. You MUST believe in MacroEvolution because you don’t want to believe in God. The alternative to MacroE is just too scary. So regardless of how many logical, mathemaical and scientific problems with MacroE, you must embrace it.

Your belief system is based less on a belief and more on a rejection of the alternative.

I statement like this would get you laughed off EvC. It's possibly one of the most arrogant statements I've every heard. And you wonder why we don't want to believe in your God if his followers make stupid statements like this.

To clarify my beliefs, I don't believe in Christianity because any God that would in the same breath say he loves me while condemning my soul to hell just because I don't worship his son, even though I have been a good person, isn't deserving of my worship.

Any time you want to play with the big boys, go ahead and post your theory to EvC. I'd love to see there take on it.

 

[Miltiades]

vyo476

You can clean all this up right now and prove my contention false simply by giving us a plausible explanation of how those 6 billion complex chemicals arranged themselves into the proper slot. So far no one in this forum has.

You can also prove my contention wrong by citing a naturally occurring code or language. None exist but you are free to try.

Until you point out a naturally occurring code or language (any code that can be demonstrated as requiring no intelligence), then the smart money is on the bird in the hand.

Outside of mathematics, there are NO absolute proofs of anything. You consider the preponderance of existing evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion.

Some people of science consider a probability of 1 in 1,000,000 as indication that an event is effectively impossible. The probability of 6,000,000,000 complex chemicals arranging themselves in the proper sequence is trillions of times smaller than 1 in a million.

Using your "lack of evidence is no evidence" logic, then you can't rule out the existence of:

• UFO's
• Bigfoot
• Ghosts
• The Loch Ness Monster

So, vyo, which of the above list do you believe in? Remember, since there is no definitive proof any of these don't exist, then you can't rule out any of the above. I guess you must believe a Bigfoot may be out there somewhere cuz there ain’t no proof there ain’t no Bigfoot.

“People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results.”
David C. Bolton, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biology, New York State Institute for Basic Research

So disprove my contention, vyo. Come on coyote. robeph, let me have your best shot. Prove me wrong. So far you haven’t. I have demonstrated a serious flaw in your precious religion of Macroevolution. Show me the light. Prove my contentions are wrong. I mean, I must be wrong. I can't be right, can I?

“ A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproven and is discarded”. Naturalistic Evolution has sufficient flaws to be discarded except that the alternative is too terrible for God Deniers to acknowledge. I mean, we just can’t even acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God. That means our lives might have some purpose and that there might be higher values than the values we humans create. That means we might have to answer for our actions and we just don’t want to do that. So we continue to patch up the holes in Macroevolution and hope something better comes along before the MacroE ship sinks.

Face the truth, vyo. You MUST believe in MacroEvolution because you don’t want to believe in God. The alternative to MacroE is just too scary. So regardless of how many logical, mathemaical and scientific problems with MacroE, you must embrace it.

Your belief system is based less on a belief and more on a rejection of the alternative.

We can't PROVE this isn't acts of "God" because we can not PROVE "God" exists. If you suggest these ARE the proof then I might want to ask you.....HOW? They are all mathmatical equations if that. Just because something interesting is happening in nature doesnt mean God exists.
NO ONE can prove God exists.
NO ONE can prove God does not exist.
END OF STORY

 

[numinus]

Actually, it appears to be torsional energy (referring to spin in the 4th dimension and it is this spin in different axis that allows it to be expressed as various forms of energy) and it is expressed in a number of ways depending on how it enters our 3 dimensional Universe. It apparently can be any one of the forms of energy you mentioned--just as electricity and magnetism are aspects of the same underlying energy.

Sounds incredibly like a variation of kaluza-klein theory - where an extra dimension is postulated. In the kaluza-klein coordinate system, you have a fourth dimension in the form of a spiral that contains a varying component to the speed of light. It intersects our spatial experience regularly, thus explaining the apparent invariance of c. The theory is rejected, btw.

Not to mention the variety of string theories where somewhere between 7 to 11 dimensions are postulated. And so, one can explain almost anything given this latitude in postulating as many dimension as possible.

But then, what does okham's razor say about parsimony, hmmm?

If you had actually READ the website I posted you wouldn't have to ask how one can produce energy without motion (or at least "apparent" motion).

I have read it. I am skeptical of your comprehension of it and the conclusions you make with reckless abandon.

Just because the electrical panel in your house has no moving parts unless you are flipping the switches, it still would appear to be producing power to someone who was unfamiliar with hydro-electric dams.

Electrical energy involves the MOVEMENT of electrons along a medium. To do so, you need to apply energy. And this energy can be generated by peddling on a bicycle or unleashing the gravitational potential of water. This fact does not change whether you think of flipping a switch or the operation of a hydro-electric dam. In cases like this, the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY is observed since you are merely converting it from one form to another.

This same concept applies, the machine Bearden and his team made has no moving parts, but it does plug into the limitless power contained in the quantum foam or the 4th dimension (Maxwell didn't consider time to be the 4th dimension as many people do today). All of the people working on this procees independently came up with their own names for the power. What one calls it is not really important, is it? Eventually we will settle on a common term. The trick right now is to get the general population to understand that it IS possible to extract this power in usable quantities with equipment that is currently available.

I am familiar with the similarity of concepts. And in such a concept, the conservation of mass and energy is upheld. You are not CREATING energy, merely transforming it.

Herein lies the absurdity of your claims. Not only is it inapplicable as a thermodynamic model, it is as fallacious as cold fusion.

Just as Newton would have had a hard time believing in atomic power, so to will people like yourself have a hard time accepting what appears to be free energy. Don't feel bad, Num, lots of scientists go to their graves without ever accepting new information that rearranges their beloved paradigm. Change is hard, it often requires work and study, and always a reforming of comfortable mental pathways.

As opposed to you who would accept anything that strikes your fancy without a rudimentary comprehension of the principles involved. This fact is quite apparent in your ignorant statements like 'plugging in the fourth dimension' nonsense.

As I said, until you SHOW ME THE MATH (which your article conveniently does not provide), I can only do what ANY reasonable individual (including newton) would do - be SKEPTICAL.

This can be a very positive thing if we don't use this power for bigger and better weapons. It's clean, universally available, and cheap, we could restore our ecosystems and eliminate poverty. We could develop REAL civilization without the endless violence that we visit on ourselves and all the other lifeforms on this planet.

You need to make it work first - in a scale millions of times what you can do in a laboratory. But I see the ignorant has nothing except his own delusions, so feel free pretending you know anything about physics.

 

[numinus]

We can't PROVE this isn't acts of "God" because we can not PROVE "God" exists. If you suggest these ARE the proof then I might want to ask you.....HOW? They are all mathmatical equations if that. Just because something interesting is happening in nature doesnt mean God exists.
NO ONE can prove God exists.
NO ONE can prove God does not exist.
END OF STORY

I suggest you limit your opinions on yourself. If YOU can't prove god exists, then it just shows the limits of YOUR reasoning ability - NOT EVERYONE ELSE'S.

 

[Miltiades]

I suggest you limit your opinions on yourself. If YOU can't prove god exists, then it just shows the limits of YOUR reasoning ability - NOT EVERYONE ELSE'S.

And just because you claim that "God" is behind every little action that actually seems unlikely then you show your reasoning ability.
If you quit wasting our time THAT would be an act of God.

There is no direct link between DNA, snowflakes, etc., to God. They could very well be acts of God, but they could also be natural phenominoms. They don't PROVE either one of them.
If John falls, and only Fred is in the room, it doesn't mean Fred did it (from the information that we have). I'm sure everyone has tripped at least once in their life on accident.

 

[imonlysaying]

What makes me laugh about all this is the fact we are debating whether we have a god or not. Does it matter? Really?
We will live as we see fit.
if we believe in any certain god or gods (and I guess most of the religious world is now monotheistic). does it actually matter. This debate can go on forever and neither side will win. In the real world though, the god sceptic side looks like it will.
All our gods come from pre-science. (ie a time before we understood what was REALLY going on around us.) at that time we needed an explanation of the sun the stars. the weather, diseases and so on.
Now we live in the 21st century. we have nearly discovered the building blocks of life. we have nearly unified the forces that hold this universe together. we have seen beyond the simple points of light we called stars. we have conquered many of the viruses and bacteria that could kill us.

in short, we have, through the years had to rely on a higher being to explain all of this (i don't deny there is one though.) now, with science we are answering our own questions. So there is now less need for a god than ever before. this trend is shown across the world. religion is decreasing!!

But that means nothing really. In my opinion ALL of the religions have piggy-backed earlier religions. Would we have evidence of god in this century (with our digital photography etc) NO. All of the religions stem from a time when we can't prove anything about them (how fitting that is.) There are hundreds of different religions. New ones are beginning to take hold aswell (scientology etc)
But none have proof. They have faith instead.

The whole topic here seems to sway on proof. Well there is none. ID can state reasons why it can't be disproved but it cannot state reasons why it can be proved!

So here is my opinion :

all religions thus far have been formulated by human beings requiring an answer to WHY life is here, WHY the universe is here! (pure speculation that has gained strength in numbers and ended up as a belief system)
take christianity. formulated by constantine and spread through the roman empire by its leader across europe. then with britains monarchy changed and modified and again spread this time to its colonies including america etc)

but the question still remains WHY.
does science have the answer?
No Science never asks why? it asks HOW?
so eventually we may know how life is formed. how the universe is formed? how many universes there are etc

but science will never answer why we are here
why is the universe here

what is the purpose of the quark, the atom, the being, the planet, the star, the galaxy, the universe, the universes!

that is left to our god, (or our absent god) and I don't believe we will ever know the answer because i believe it is unknowable to us.

A god solves all this. (but all too easily)
there may be some omiscient, omnipotent being(s) out there but the knowledge of that is beyond our 3 dimentional minds. we are not equipped to understand such a concept.


AND SO I GO BACK TO THE TOP OF MY THREAD (B4 MY RANT)
I guess I am not as knowledgable as a good many on this topic, but my view is, forget worrying about god (whether your a believer or not). worry more about your
1 ) own life,
2) your immediate family,
3) your fellow human beings,
4) your enviroment,
5) and most importantly your planet.

We only have one planet and we are abusing it (regarldess of whether you belive in global warming or not) and its fellow species. If we all made a declaration to help these five causes then the world would start to heal and we would start to heal regardless of creed, colour, race, religious orientation.

RELIGION MEANS NOTHING. IF ITS TRUE THEN HUMANS WILL CHOOSE THEIR OWN WAY. IF ITS UNTRUE THEN HUMANS WILL CHOOSE THEIR OWN WAY. THINK OF OUR PLANET AND OUR SPECIES AND ALL THE OTHER SPECIES AND LIVE BY THAT. thats all we have and once its gone its gone regardless of whether you believe in god or not

 

[Coyote]

George Carlin summed it up best:

"Do you believe in God"?

"No"

*BANG*

"Do you believe in MY God?"

"No"

*BANG*


My God has a bigger dick then your God.

 

[numinus]

And just because you claim that "God" is behind every little action that actually seems unlikely then you show your reasoning ability.
If you quit wasting our time THAT would be an act of God.

There is no direct link between DNA, snowflakes, etc., to God. They could very well be acts of God, but they could also be natural phenominoms. They don't PROVE either one of them.
If John falls, and only Fred is in the room, it doesn't mean Fred did it (from the information that we have). I'm sure everyone has tripped at least once in their life on accident.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never proposed dna as proof in this thread.

So, you might as well quit responding to my post if you can't be bothered to read it in the first place.