Where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?

Imagine you and I are having a conversation, and you say that the tooth fairy left a dollar under your daughters pillow last night.

I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.

The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.

I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.


Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty... the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.

That is a non answer because just because we can not prove God exists does not mean there is no God.
Neither do you have to prove there is no God but I will still believe just as you believe to not believe.
The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?

There is no proof that there isn't a God, just like there isn't any proof that there is. All the scientific facts in the world can't stop someone from feeling god's love flow through their souls.

I have faith, that's how I know there is a god. I'm assuming that the people that try and prove that there isn't one don't have faith.

Imagine you and I are having a conversation, and you say that the tooth fairy left a dollar under your daughters pillow last night.

I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.

The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.

I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.


Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty...the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.

Ok, great analogy. What you are saying is that you know that dollar bills are made by humans therefore, a human put the dollar bill under the pillow.

Now, lets tweak the analogy a bit. Lets say for instance, that you find a watch in the forest. And I say that it created itself from all the materials after eons they came together and formed a perfect timekeeping mechanism. Of course, you know that is impossible. It must have been created by some human being.

Now, even just one little piece of the universe is a million times more intricate and detailed than a mere human mechanism. And if it took intelligence to make that trinket. How much more intelligence did it take to create the universe?

Yet, you claim that it came to be on its own. I believe the burden of proof is on you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I will say what I said on the previous thred!

Evidence for Intelligent design.

The Evidence For a Creator is blatant and purely common sence that is IN YOUR FACE . Ignoring this evidence is a display of deliberate and willful ignorance.


You make things so complicated that you fail to recognize the obvious. For example, take a look at the Mount Rushmore photo below. Now ask yourself, how many years would it take for these figures to appear on the side of this mountain by chance? Millions of years? Billions of years? Given one hundred trillion years, could these figures eventually form on the side of the mountain?

The only thing that fuels the theory of evolution is the assumption that any thing can happen given a billions of years (that why I scientist convieneintly changed the age of the earth from 70 million to billions of years in oder to make evolution feasible)
So the assuption is that if you take a 100 monkey's, put them on type writers for a billion years , the monkeys will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespear, Hamlet, Romeo &Juliet, Othelo etc... This is the huge unproven and highly improbable assuption the theory depends on. So the thoery reckons after billions of years of chance, we eventually, gradually come to be how we are now.

We know that skilled artists and sculptors worked to create the faces on Mount Rushmore. When we look at Mount Rushmore, we know that a mind or minds were used in designing and executing the images we see there. Prior to the faces being formed there, Mount Rushmore was a "victim" of chance, wind, rain, time, erosion. The result? Nothing that we would consider as complex, intelligent design. Then the faces were carved on the side of the mountain. It was then that mere chance was overthrown... by intentional design and order.
So could such a thing come about by chance? If the earth is as old as "scientists" tell us, then the mountains in the world are quite ancient. Do we see any mountains in the world where complex and recognizable images have formed on them by chance? NO

So an evolutionis or a believer in the Big Bang would see mount Rushmore and conclude that there is no intelligent sculptor/artist but rather the faces on this mountain appeared from no where, by chance over billions of years, given infinite time, wind, rain, and erosion. That conclusion is as ridiculous and as ignorant as the hoax that we all just appeared by accident from no where by chance and evolved over a billions of years. :rolleyes:

So the bottom line is the evidence for an intelligent designer is simple common sense. You dont need someone to tell you or give you "evidence" that an artist sculpted mount Rushmore, if you have a brain and common sense, the evidence is in your face. In the same way the evidence of intelligent design by a creator is in your face if you choose to use your common sence.

Sassy I agree but I want to know HOW all the 'scientific evidence' proves there is no God.

Sassy I agree but I want to know HOW all the 'scientific evidence' proves there is no God.

It doesn't! It accually affirms that there is a God. When Dawin came up with is wise evolution idea, cells were thought to be just blobs of nothing. Now Science has descovered DNA which has a wealth of complex information. Our human genetic code, though microscopic, would fill 100 books, each 1200 pages thick. Mathematically, there is ZERO chance life is a cosmic accident.

No one can prove that there is a God.

No one can prove that there is not a God.

Why is this simple fact, still being argued?

Sassy T and DeMaria

Outstanding answers .there is little to add . It has been a long time since anyone in science thought the simple single cell was a simple structure. The more humans learn the more we learn the complexity of what we had previously thought was simple .

Because I do not understand why disproving God is considered objective to not have to answer and the other is required to show burden of proof when what they believe proves nothing more than what believers believe. Seems like a contradiction of terms and I would like to know HOW science proves to them there is no God.

It is the old standard dodge. They can make a negative definitive comment "there is no God" and then dismissively claim no need to prove a negative .What they really mean is that they "believe " there is not God. . They should not be making a definitive statement in the first place if they are not simularily willing to admit they have no better rational for their statement of non-belief than I have in my claim . I may say I "believe "God exists and when asked ,the bottom line is admit that it is a matter of faith .

There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.

TOMDER
Exactly

There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.

I BELIEVE there is...

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2pmQVeqKsZkQ3M:http://heim.etherweave.com/weblog/archives/bambola%2520zuni-thumb.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://heim.etherweave.com/weblog/archives/bambola%2520zuni-thumb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://heim.etherweave.com/weblog/archives/2006_06.html&h=146&w=166&sz=6&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=2pmQVeqKsZkQ3M:&tbnh=87&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfang%2Btoothed%2Bmonster%2B%26gbv%3D2 %26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG)

So one can make definitive proof with a simple image?

I'll turn the argument around . I have NO requirement to prove a matter of faith.

Agreed.

THEN WHY is it repeated over and over that Believers NEED to prove!

Don't know, I didn't start this thread. I'm just a religious guy responding.

You little ladies don't seem to know what the word **prove** means.

You BELIEVE that there is a GodAlmighty.

Most people don't BELIEVE that.

Sassy T and DeMaria

outstanding answers .there is little to add . It has been a long time since anyone in science thought the simple single cell was a simple structure. The more humans learn the more we learn the complexity of what we had previously thought was simple .Amen brother! I'm currrently working on getting physics, chemistry, and math striken from the american curriculum as they have been showing a tendency to get very complex.

it is the old standard dodge. They can make a negative definitive comment "there is no God" and then dismissively claim no need to prove a negative .What they really mean is that they "believe " there is not God. . They should not be making a definitive statement in the first place if they are not simularily willing to admit they have no better rational for their statement of non-belief than I have in my claim . I may say I "believe "God exists and when asked ,the bottom line is admit that it is a matter of faith .

Excellent post.

No one has proved that there is a GodAlmighty, ever. :)

Then why do you Credo and others KEEP say stuff like this??

I say to you, there is no tooth fairy.


The burden of proof is on YOU because you made the tooth fairy claim.

I don't have to prove that there is no tooth fairy.


Same thing goes for claims of GodAlmighty... the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a GodAlmighty.

People who have Faith(believe in GodAlmigty, etc)have to admit that it is indeed Faith, their belief, not fact. Religion is called Faith!

Their Faith comforts them and they enjoy it, but it is not fact to be forced onto others.

Where/what is the objective proof that a unicorn was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove a unicorn God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?

That is a non answer because just because we can not prove God exists does not mean there is no God.

This is correct.


The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?

Wrong question. It is hardly impressive that we cannot objectively disprove the existence of god, since there are millions and millions of things we cannot disprove the existence of. The question is, upon what evidence should we convince ourselves that there is a god?

There is no fang-toothed metagoer with long hair - prove it.

You made the statement, it is your burden to prove.

As for me, I have evidence for the existence of God. Do you have evidence for the existence of this thing you've alleged exists?

Whether the tooth fairy, the fang-toothed metagoer with long hair or the unicorn
CAN YOU PROVE THEY DO NOT EXIST?

This is correct.

Agreed. Therefore you have admitted that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.


Wrong question.

No. It is an excellent question which you have answered above. There is no evidence that God does NOT EXIST.


It is hardly impressive that we cannot objectively disprove the existence of god, since there are millions and millions of things we cannot disprove the existence of.

Again, excellent logic. Again, you have admitted that you can't prove that God DOES NOT exist.


The question is, upon what evidence should we convince ourselves that there is a god?

Should you? I don't know what you mean by that particular phrasing of the question. It seems as though you mean, "by what evidence should you delude yourself...."

As for me, the evidence pointed me to the conclusion that God exists. The fact of our existence and the wonderful nature of our being, the wonders of creation, they all point to an intelligence far beyond ours.

That is the evidence that leads me to the conclusion that God exists.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Whether the tooth fairy, the fang-toothed metagoer with long hair or the unicorn
CAN YOU PROVE THEY DO NOT EXIST?

No, I cannot. But again, I fail to see why you find this to be an impressive argument.

Ditto
I fail to see why it IS the non believers MAIN argument and find it an impressive argument
AND THAT IS precisely my point!

Agreed. Therefore you have admitted that you can't prove that God doesn't exist.

Yes, I have. But for the umpteenth time, why do you find this to be an impressive argument for the existence of god? I have also admitted I can't prove unicorns don't exist. Are you impressed by that as well?


No. It is an excellent question which you have answered above. There is no evidence that God does NOT EXIST.

Um, this isn't quite what I said. I stated we can not prove that god doesn't exist, which is different from there is no evidence. We are treading on shaky ground here. While there is no direct evidence for either the existence or non-existence of any god (show me your evidence that Thor doesn't exist), there is loads of evidence to suggest the ancient literature proclaiming these gods existed were wrong on many accounts.

There is much evidence to suggest that we share a common ancestor with apes, that Noah's Ark was a fairy tale, that men cannot live to be 700 years old, etc. etc. Of course, none of this proves god doesn't exist and I assume you find solace in that?

Lobroster
YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.

Lobroster
YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.

Any logical atheist will admit that it can't be proven that god doesn't exist. The problem starts from your end, when religious people suggest they have proof tat god DOES exist. Things like the bible says so, my uncle was cured of cancer, or my car keys miraculously appeared after being missing 3 days, etc.

I'm not sure why some of you can't comprehend this simple logic. There are zillions of things we could postulate the existence of, which can't be proven one way or the other. But if I tell you the world is run by invisible green gremlins, then the onus is on me to convince you it is true. Somehow, you don't see it that way when it comes to the god you insist exists. It is no victory for you that I cannot prove He doesn't.

Again, excellent logic. Again, you have admitted that you can't prove that God DOES NOT exist.Then this is of course true for all gods isn't it?

where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts? You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?
Due to the nature of "objective supporting evidence" there is no such proof for God being the power/force behind the creation of the universe.

Your question refers to a negative claim ( proof that God is not ) while the positive claim (proof that God is) has so far never been provided other than in subjective supporting argumentation. The lead question is therefore irrelevant.
There is no need to prove that God does not / can not / is not . There is need to prove that God does / can / is . No such proof exist, other than of a subjective nature !

===


YOU may admit there is no proof either way but that does not mean that other non believers do not insist on Christians proving God exists.
The point is not that there is no proof either way. The point is that theists make an unsupported claim that they can not prove themselves. And now they demand from those who do not accept the theist' claim that they prove the negative version of the theist's positive claim. Totally ridiculous!

===


The question is HOW does objective proof prove there is no God?
Why SHOULD anyone want to prove that something does not exist, as there is no objective supported evidence for the existence of it?
I have not seen anyone here who stated that "God" does not exist. The general skeptic line is that there is no objective proof for "God's" existence.
Your question is nothing else than a clincher, a poor and lame excuse for not being able to prove with objective supporting evidence that "God" does exist, although almost all theists indeed claim that "God" exists.

So why should people who do NOT claim that "God" does NOT exist now suddenly have to prove that "God" does NOT exist, specially taking into account that proving a "negative" claim is trillion x trillion x trillion times+ harder than a "positive"claim ?

Is your question in essence not actually an admission of total incompetence for - and complete failure of - actual support for your own deity?

:rolleyes:

·

If De Maria and NoHelp are trying to make the point that because it cannot be proven God does not exist, it means there is some possibility that God does exist, I'm actually Ok with that.

The problem is that they are trying to go one further and imply that this is an argument for the existence of God, which it clearly is not.

Look... The fact we we can't prove God doesn't exist, necessarily means there IS some possibility that a god of some sort does exist. To an unbiased person who thinks logically about it will conclude it is still unlikely as heck, but nevertheless must allow some possibility for it. Personally, I put the odds at being on par with fairies existing. In other words, almost zero, but I'll concede it's not quite zero.

If De Maria and NoHelp are trying to make the point that because it cannot be proven God does not exist, it means there is some possibility that God does exist, I'm actually Ok with that.

The problem is that they are trying to go one further and imply that this is an argument for the existence of God, which it clearly is not.

Look... The fact we we can't prove God doesn't exist, necessarily means there IS some possibility that a god of some sort does exist. To an unbiased person who thinks logically about it will conclude it is still unlikely as heck, but nevertheless must allow some possibility for it. Personally, I put the odds at being on par with fairies existing. In other words, almost zero, but I'll concede it's not quite zero.


No WRONG! I am not trying to say that your lack of proof proves anything other than you have no proof either so why is there an argument on so many boards to PROVE God exists?
That is my point. That we do not have to prove faith which requires believing any more than you have to prove unbelief.

Nohelp is correct, there are literally hundreds of gods out there that cannot be proven.

No WRONG!! I am not trying to say that your lack of proof proves anything other than you have no proof either so why is there an argument on so many boards to PROVE God exists? That is my point. That we do not have to prove faith which requires believing any more than you have to prove unbelief.
That is the result caused by all the empty wild claims made by so many here, and which (could) have consequences for others with different views...

If theists would just believe in their deity/deities, there would be no "objective-subjective debate".
But (some) theists can't accept that there are people who have different world views.
And these theists insists that their own personal religious views should be the views of all.

For me nobody has to prove anything - that being subject to theists accepting that there are people with different views, and to stopping their un-constitutional attempts to force their religious views on to non-theists.

:rolleyes:

·

I guess I just don't see 'Theists INSISTING that their own personal religious views should be the views of all so I can't understand the objective/subjective *debate*

nohelp is correct, there are literally hundreds of gods out there that cannot be proven.
Hundreds? No trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x gods that cannot be proved to exist. NONE OF THEM !

Seems more that gods do not exist at all...

:D :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: :D

·

Hundreds? No trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x gods that cannot be proved to exist. NONE OF THEM !

Seems more that gods do not exist at all ....



·


Trillions... mmm? I think you are getting a little carried away here... sound like one your imfamous unprove claims andBELIEFS...

Niether can you prove a magical Big Bang that was intelligent enough to make the universe.. lol So we are in the same boat my friend.. :D

I guess I just don't see 'Theists INSISTING that their own personal religious views should be the views of all so I can't understand the objective/subjective *debate*But haven't you seen the religious ones going on about knowing "the Truth" (like they invented the word) and condemning all who aren't like them?

No and I have asked for specific direct quotes that show that and haven't gotten any
Replies other than more accusations that they do it.
I do see an occasional My denomination is the right one though

There is no evidence that there is not a teapot orbiting around Jupiter, yet you don't believe adamantly that there is, do you?

Capuchin
That is not the point and has already been covered here.

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]That is the result caused by all the empty wild claims made by so many here, and which (could) have consequences for others with different views...


Yes like the empty claims you make about your unproven magical Big Bang which you have been claiming is a fact and yet have failed to prove it. :D


If theists would just believe in their deity/deities, there would be no "objective-subjective debate".
But (some) theists can't accept that there are people who have different world views.
And these theists insists that their own personal religious views should be the views of all.


Apparently you are the one who can't accept that there are people out there like theist who do not share your athiestic beliefs. It obviously bothers you considering you spend at least 60% of your spare time on a religious forum trying to promote your beliefs as being better. Like I said before we don't need someone trying to convert us to their beliefs.. we are quite happy as theists and we would much appreciate it if you didn't waist your time with your humanistic propaganda.


For me nobody has to prove anything - that being subject to theists accepting that there are people with different views, and to stopping their un-constitutional attempts to force their religious views on to non-theists.

Niether have you proved your magical big bang. We are still waiting for proof that this so called big bang is the father of all life...

There is no evidence that there is not a teapot orbiting around Jupiter, yet you don't believe adamantly that there is, do you?

This ridiculous comparison tactic & is severely flawed and ludicrous that you have to wonder about the sanity of the person using it. It basically lumps all paranormal phenomena in the same category as anything a skeptic like you makes up out of thin air. It is more of a belittling tactic than a reasoned argument.
The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it's in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized. However, not only is this false and a mere play on words, but it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons.

That analogy does not make any sense because there is nothing the existence an orbiting teapot have to show for anything. However the existence of God explains the existence of the universe and throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with God which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said about your orbiting tea pot which makes your comparison invalid.

And also just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can't prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can't prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn't mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.


So pleas if you are going to have an intelligent debate about something, please make reasonable points instead of these invalid cheap and played out analogies. :rolleyes:

Well you never know Sassy aliens could drink tea and could have lost their pot.

Well you never know Sassy aliens could drink tea and could have lost their pot.

Lol.. anything is possible :D

lol .. anything is possible :DThat's exactly what's being said - you finally got it! :)

Yes like the empty claims you make about your unproven magical Big Bang which you have been claiming is a fact and yet have failed to prove it.
More bull manure... I never stated that what is called the Big Bang is a fact. I stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence for the flash expansion that in popular terms is called "the Big Bang".
This in stark contrast to the total lack of any objective supporting evidence for the religious creation claim.

Why do you always try to twist everything and/or tamper with quotations by making false suggestions as to what was really stated? Perhaps because you can not support your own religious wild claims ?

:rolleyes:

·

Maybe if you attended a science class that teaches about advanced scientific theories you would know why the big bang is presented as a theory. I'm not going to try to prove it to you because anything I say about it your either going to say I'm wrong or god did that way. Frankly I have decided that I created the world last Tuesday and created you all with memory of days before that simply to amuse myself. You can't prove me wrong so it must be true.

As I have already said even with all the scientific proof in the world HOW does it DISPROVE God? Scientific proof does not mean God did not create it.

It doesn't, you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. It's not possible. Especially things like gods. Who have no properties of matter. By their very nature gods are set up so that they can't be disproven because if you could disprove it almost no one would believe it. Even if you claim god did something like creating the universe, if we prove the big bang was the start of it all. All it means to religious people is that god used the big bang to create the universe and it doesn't disprove him at all.

If 100% of the people who believed in religion were like most people who believe in religion, it wouldn't be that big a deal. The problem is the people on the edge. The people who halt progress in the name of religion. The people who insist I live my life according to their religion. The people who would do harm because of their religion. The people who knock on my door at 8o'clock on a Saturday morning and insist on telling me about their religion and don't go away when I don't answer the door after 10 minutes of them knocking and ringing the bell. If some of the people who believe in Santa Clause and unicorns used their believe to justify these crimes, I wouldn't like them either.

Exactly

It doesn't, you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. It's not possible. Especially things like gods. Who have no properties of matter. By their very nature gods are set up so that they can't be disproven because if you could disprove it almost no one would believe it. Even if you claim god did something like creating the universe, if we prove the big bang was the start of it all. All it means to religious people is that god used the big bang to create the universe and it doesn't disprove him at all.



Exactly.

That's true, for me science just proves to me that the natural world is created in such a way that I cannot deny the existence of a Creator.

And the thing is that individuals cannot go out on their own to research the organisms/systems in nature to strengthen their beliefs in a Creator,we need the people who do such research in order for us to understand better the works of the Almighty.

Not to divert away from the main point,but was there something in history that actually made believers deny science or for science to deny the possibility of a Creator?

I cannot understand the need to deny one to believe in the other.

Firm,

There are lots of examples of the christian religion trying to keep knowledge away from the people. From Galileo being jailed for claim the earth obits the sun, to the modern era where religious zealots are trying to force the teaching of creation in our public schools.

Firm,

There are lots of examples of the christian religion trying to keep knowledge away from the people. From Galileo being jailed for claim the earth obits the sun, to the modern era where religious zealots are trying to force the teaching of creation in our public schools.

By Christian religion, do you mean the Catholic Church?

If so, I believe you are mistaken. Galileo for instance, did not discover that the earth orbited the sun. A Jesuit, Copernicus, did so. The Catholic Church was studying the question before making any premature announcements such as Galileo made.

In addition, Galileo was not jailed for revealing that the earth orbitted the sun but for claiming that the Word of God was in error. If he had stuck to science and left theology out of his commentary, the Church would have had no problem with his announcement.

Sincerely,

De Maria

so why is there an argument on so many boards to PROVE God exists?

Um, because there are so many claims on these boards that God DOES exist. I'm not sure why you can't understand this. If I assert there is an invisible gremlin living in my closet, you have no reason to believe me until I offer some sort of evidence this is true. Many feel the same way about your god. What's so hard to understand about that?

I can understand it. I don't know why you can't understand why I am trying to get both sides to understand that it is useless to debate by hashing it out here so MAYBE Christians AND atheists will get it off their chest here instead of arguing on others posts.

Will airing it out here stop those christians from going door to door trying to convert me to their religion?

Can any one describe precisely what love is and can the listener understand exactly what it was just said?
Can any one know how a new kind of food tastes like by listening and not try to put that food in his mouth?
Human language and the material on this earth are not the right tools to describe all about what GOD is. And worse than that, the human mind is way too incapable to understand GOD, let alone language or science. MEDITATE ! Get out of the human mind and depends on how high your level of consciousness, you will understand GOD, or define GOD at your level.

nt45kcl, that's what I've been saying. Apparently there are many who will not admit to their mental limitations. Refuse to see the truth of who and what they are, indefinable beings. These individuals feel it is necessary to show that their opinion is the correct one by making other opinions look wrong.

Winning a debate means that you are good at picking apart ideas and being "more" right. If one is not feeding his ego and feeling superior to someone else, wouldn't they be looking for similarities not differences?

nt45kcl, that's what I've been saying. Apparently there are many who will not admit to their mental limitations. Refuse to see the truth of who and what they are, indefinable beings. These individuals feel it is neccessary to show that their opinion is the correct one by making other opinions look wrong.

Winning a debate means that you are good at picking apart ideas and being "more" right. If one is not feeding his ego and feeling superior to someone else, wouldn't they be looking for similarities not differences?

Exactly what I mean people are going to believe what they are going to believe SO WHY argue over belief, subjective, objective, etc...

Lets stop here and go find out for our own answers about GOD and pleasure to know GOD and our unlimited potentials...

I am still down to earth where the true gravity is so high that my soul is so dwelled strongly. I need GOD where all the happiness are there. This life is fun just a little bit but the suffering is way too much.

Simonaeugie and N0help4u, Thank you for your answers.

By Christian religion, do you mean the Catholic Church?

If so, I believe you are mistaken. Galileo for instance, did not discover that the earth orbited the sun. A Jesuit, Copernicus, did so. The Catholic Church was studying the question before making any premature announcements such as Galileo made.

In addition, Galileo was not jailed for revealing that the earth orbitted the sun but for claiming that the Word of God was in error. If he had stuck to science and left theology out of his commentary, the Church would have had no problem with his announcement.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I didn't say Gaileo discovered the heliocentric model I said "claimed" different to discover I can claim the earth revolves around the sun without discovering it. He was jailed because he went against the current teachings of the church and that means he was jailed for his ideas a big no-no. Also how can you stick to just science when part of the churches teaching what it considers science from god and that science is wrong? How can you make a premature announcement when you are right and all the evidence supports you are right? Unless of course religion is weapon of control.

Of course I know this is meaningless to you as someone who would probably burn Darwin at the stake as a heretic with glee in his heart.

I didn't say Gaileo discovered the heliocentric model I said "claimed" different to discover I can claim the earth revolves around the sun without discovering it. He was jailed because he went against the current teachings of the church and that means he was jailed for his ideas a big no-no. Also how can you stick to just science when part of the churches teaching what it considers science from god and that science is wrong? How can you make a premature announcement when you are right and all the evidence supports you are right? Unless of course religion is weapon of control.

Of course I know this is meaningless to you as someone who would probably burn Darwin at the stake as a heretic with glee in his heart.

Just a couple of comments:

* While Galileo didn't discover the heliocentric model, he eagerly supported Copernicus and was very instrumental in popularizing the theory.

* You have to realize that many people who peruse these forums aren't merely religious, but refuse to even accept modern science. It's why I scan these forums from time to time. It's so incredibly sad that this many grown adults do not grasp the reality of evolution. Especially, when those who argue against it will eventually be proven just as wrong as those who argued against Galileo and Copernicus. Anyone interested in learning about evolution will quickly see it is as much common knowledge as planetary orbits are.

Original Board Question : where/what is the objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
You can use all the scientific fact and theory on the earths existence but how does it objectively prove God was not the *author and creator* of the scientific facts?
There is no objective supporting proof for God to exist and be the Creator. So why should there be any "objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe"?

What you actually ask here is equal to : where/what is the objective proof that the Flying Pink Unicorn was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?

:D

·

As I stated in my post on this we covered that there already.
BTW there are no flying pink unicorns...
Flying pink elephants and/or one eyed, one horned flying purple people eaters BUT NO flying pink unicorns.

As I stated in my post on this we covered that there already.
BTW there are no flying pink unicorns.......
OK : just the Pink Unicorn than , or a flying Spaghetti Monster. All these suggested-to-exist entities - all of them - fail any objective supported evidence towards their existence, and my point is that it is not up to anyone to prove that they do not exist, but to those who claim so to prove that they do exist.

If that was the conclusion of the discussion, than I agree with that.

:D

·

the point is that it is not up to anyone to prove that they do not exist, but to those who claim so to prove that they do exist.
·

This is where we differ because I do not think either 'side' has to PROVE anything.

You have your belief, I have mine, De Maria has their belief, Allheart has her belief,
Lobroster has his belief,
NO proving even if somebody insists they are right it isn't going to change any of our minds.
I even believe that if someone could some how actually PROVE the truth that others would not believe it any way unless it happened to ALREADY be what they believed anyway.

Would you basically tend to agree with that??

This is where we differ because I do not think either 'side' has to PROVE anything.
I have always stated that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever suits the person.

Where the problem with many theists is, is that they insist to use their influence to force their religious ideas and force it onto others.
If you believe in God : fine ! If you want to go to church : fine ! If you state here that you believe that God wants you to this or that : fine !
But the moment that you try to force your religion and your religious views onto someone else I say : first you have to prove that what you say is correct.

Therefore as to the topic question : "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?" : it is not a fair question.
You ask for ways to DISPROVE God. Not to PROVE God. Why should anyone want to try to disprove something that so far has never before with objective supported evidence been proved to be correct?

:rolleyes:

·

I even believe that if someone could some how actually PROVE the truth that others would not believe it any way unless it happened to ALREADY be what they believed anyway.

Well, that's not true of me nor do I think it's true of most atheists. I will immediately become a believer upon sufficient evidence. And that's the thing...

I care about whether my beliefs are true. I am open to being shown that I am wrong. But I tend to agree with you when it comes to most theists. I don't think there is any amount of evidence that will persuade them that heir belief in god could be wrong. Nothing whatsoever. I think that's a sad way to go through life clinging to a belief no matter what.

Think of it this way say you own acres of land and you want to put a house on it. However a bunch of protesters are saying you can't put a house on it because bigfoot lives on it and this group of protesters are large enough that many of the members of this group are part of the local government that grants building permits. Would it be fair that you have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist which means having every sq inch of every forrest looked at 24 hours a day or should the people that say bigfoot exists have to at least give some evidence that bigfoot exists other than that Billy Bob something in the woods.

Would it be fair that you have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist which means having every sq inch of every forrest looked at 24 hours a day.

Don't be silly. Examining every sq inch STILL doesn't prove bigfoot doesn't exist. Maybe he has super natural camouflage abilities and works in mysterious ways. You can't prove he doesn't! Go back to where you came from. We don't want no a-bigfootists moving in corrupting our children. We're Yeti lovin' folk in these parts.

Another reason why you can't prove something that doesn't exist. The moment you think you have a fool proof way of proving something doesn't exist someone attaches another characteristic to it so that your original idea doesn't work any more.

Yeah you can't prove that something doesn't exist

Yeah you can't prove that something doesn't exist
That wasn't the point he was making.

:D the point I was making

"You can't prove that something doesn't exist".

It all depends on WHAT does not exist. And WHERE that does not exist.
If you mean the existence of God, and you describe God as being fixed to heaven and add a couple of restricting parameters (as for instance where that heaven should be located), than it is possible to prove that God does not exist by simply going to that location and finding that on that spot there is no heaven - so there can be no God.

But as Christians can not even specify where heaven should be located, and also can not guarantee that God is restricted to that heaven, there are so many unknowns build in to the God existence claim, that it become impossible to prove God does not exist.

There is no need to prove that God does not exist. Why should anybody want to do that? It are the Christians who can not even prove that God exists. And that on itself is already more than enough for me to support the view that the existence of God is extremely doubtful, and so far has failed any support.

:rolleyes:

·

:D the point I was making

My last point in this thread because this is starting to get silly.

You seem to think that because something can neither be proven nor falsified that this necessarily means there is a 50/50 chance it is true. Either there is a God or there's not, right? 50/50... But this is a HUGE error in logic! It shouldn't take much thinking on your part to see why. Good luck with it.

More bull manure ... I never stated that what is called the Big Bang is a fact. I stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence for the flash expansion that in popular terms is called "the Big Bang".
This in stark contrast to the total lack of any objective supporting evidence for the religious creation claim.

Why do you always try to twist everything and/or tamper with quotations by making false suggestions as to what was really stated? Perhaps because you can not support your own religious wild claims ?

:rolleyes:

·


At least I am rational enough to admit that there is no 100% factual evidence for my beliefs. Unlike you who sends mixed messages... you admit the is insufficient evidence to qualify the big bang theory as fact but when I say you BELIEVE in the big bang you start to friek out and say you don't "believe" you 'Know" it is a fact... lol

So until you man up and admit you BELIEVE in a Big Bang, I will continue to ask you for factual evidence for a big bang. ;)

So until you man up and admit you BELIEVE in a Big Bang, i will continue to ask you for factual evidence for a big bang.
A lot of bull waste, sassyT !
I do not believe in what is popularly called the Big Bang. There is no need to believe that, as there is ample evidence that the BB happened, about 14,3 Billion years ago. Lot's of different cross supporting evidence for that.
Note : the Big Bang was NOT a gigantic explosion. It was a phenomenal fast, very short, and sudden expansion of space-time.

It is YOU who keeps twisting words. I never claimed the Big Bang to be a huge explosion, nor that is is a fact. I always have stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence that the BB happened, though there never will be a 100% total coverage of everything that was involved in that event.

It is YOU who keeps stating that I believe in the BB, although so far you have never been able to objectively support that wild claim.

It is YOU who keeps posting lies and untruths about what I posted in the past. I have repeatedly corrected you when you posted such lies and untruths. Still you keep posting them.

sassyT : you have claimed several times to have some sort of degree in Biology. I asked you where and when you obtained that degree. You never addressed that. So I have to assume that that was another lie...
Your approach to the ways scientific research works, and to how scientific evidence is obtained and supported seems also to confirm my assumption...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]A lot of bull waste, sassyT !
I do not believe in what is popularly called the Big Bang. There is no need to believe that, as there is ample evidence that the BB happened, about 14,3 Billion years ago. Lot's of different cross supporting evidence for that.

You are really confusing me now.. :confused: So what do you BELIEVE in? How do you figure we came into being?

.


It is YOU who keeps twisting words. I never claimed the Big Bang to be a huge explosion, nor that is is a fact. I always have stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence that the BB happened, though there never will be a 100% total coverage of everything that was involved in that event.

It is YOU who keeps stating that I believe in the BB, although so far you have never been able to objectively support that wild claim.

It is YOU who keeps posting lies and untruths about what I posted in the past. I have repeatedly corrected you when you posted such lies and untruths. Still you keep posting them.

You don't have to be ashamed of your belief in a big bang now. You did say life came from a big bang and now you are changing your statement because you realise how ridiculous the theory is. Whatever :rolleyes:


sassyT : you have claimed several times to have some sort of degree in Biology. I asked you where and when you obtained that degree. You never addressed that. So I have to assume that that was another lie...
Your approach to the ways scientific research works, and to how scientific evidence is obtained and supported seems also to confirm my assumption...

Again that is your BELIEF which has no materal effect on the fact that I am doing my masters in Biology. Unlike you I am aware of all the unknowable assuptions used in sceintific theory and therefore I do not believe it to be TRUTH as you do. So just because I do not share the same FAITH you have in the unproven assuptions of some theories, does not make me less of a science major. :rolleyes:

Like I said Cred doesn't want to answer what he believes just what he does not believe on existence.

I'll tell you what I think. Again this is what I think and I maintain that thinking is different than believing because if evidence is presented that is contrary to what I think I will change my ideas.

I think the big bang is the best model of the universe to explain the way it is today.
I think evolution is the best model to explain how you get from a single cell to a more complex organism.
I think that we currently don't have a theory with enough evidence to claim a definitive theory on abiogenesis. I think we will have one some day though.
If we find new evidence or someone comes up with a different theory that better explains the evidence I might change what I think. Ideas change in the face of evidence. That is the great thing about ideas is that they can change.

I'll tell you what I think. Again this is what I think and I maintain that thinking is different than believing because if evidence is presented that is contrary to what I think I will change my ideas.

I think the big bang is the best model of the universe to explain the way it is today.
I think evolution is the best model to explain how you get from a single cell to a more complex organism.
I think that we currently don't have a theory with enough evidence to claim a definitive theory on abiogenesis. I think we will have one some day though.
If we find new evidence or someone comes up with a different theory that better explains the evidence I might change what I think. Ideas change in the face of evidence. That is the great thing about ideas is that they can change.

Good for you!

I think The Big bang is a Hoax given that there are many scientific problems with the theory.

I think evolution is a farce given the strugling fossil evidence and the fact that a not single mutation resulting in adding new information has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. This is just one of the many unproven assuption the theory depends on.

good for you!

I think The Big bang is a Hoax given that there are many scientific problems with the theory.

I think evolution is a farce given the strugling fossil evidence and the fact that a not single mutation resulting in adding new information has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. This is just one of the many unproven assuption the theory depends on.

How can the big bang be a hoax? Are you trying to say that the scientist aren't observing what they say they are observing and scientists world wide are all going along with it. I can also say that there isn't a single scientific problem with the big bang because if there was the theory would be altered so it didn't have any problems that how theories work. There might be unknowns which when they become known might change the theory but it's still a good idea to theorize even in the event of unknowns. Also what is the alternate theory that you prefer given the evidence at hand?

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)
Now that evolution has occurred in a lab are you going to change your line of thinking?

Cred says he does not believe in the big bang so it doesn't sound like people who follow science can even agree.

Compliments of the supporting evidence post by Cred:

No. I neither believe in the Big Bang, nor in a Big Bang that made "us".
Note : I NEVER have even suggested that "we" are made by a Big Bang ....
Why you suggest that cr*p I do not know, but it shows perfectly the retarded basis of your wild claims.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

You are really confusing me now.. :confused: So what do you BELIEVE in? How do you figure we came into being?
I have no religious beliefs. But if you insist on an answer I would say that my personal preference goes to logic and ratio.


You don't have to be ashamed of your belief in a big bang now.
Why would I be ashamed of my personal preference? I do not believe in "a" Big Bang.


You did say life came from a big bang and now you are changing your statement because you realise how ridiculous the theory is.
A total lie : I have never stated that. I challenge you to state where and when I posted that : you can't !!!!


Re. sassyT's claims to have a degree in Biology.


Again that is your BELIEF which has no materal effect on the fact that I am doing my masters in Biology.
You repeatedly stated in May 2008 that you HAD a degree in Biology. So you lied than. And you frequently lie here too, and besides that you keep twisting words, post untruths, and make false statements.

:D ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

·

Did she specify masters?


SOME OTHER types of biology degrees
Associate degree, biology Minor, bachelor of Arts in Biology, Bachelor of Science in Biology

Cred says he does not believe in the big bang so it doesn't sound like people who follow science can even agree.
There is not one single scientist or well-informed amateur (like me) who BELIEVES in the Big Bang.

Belief is related to assumptions for which there is no support at all - like religious claims.
Science is based on verifiable and objective supportive data , i.e. in facts.

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Michaelb's argument is that the big bang did exist and you claim otherwise that is my point

***correction: is how he fits his sciencifically inclined beliefs to the earths existence
STILL it is two different beliefs based on scientific beliefs


I'll tell you what I think. Again this is what I think and I maintain that thinking is different than believing because if evidence is presented that is contrary to what I think I will change my ideas.

I think the big bang is the best model of the universe to explain the way it is today.
I think evolution is the best model to explain how you get from a single cell to a more complex organism.
I think that we currently don't have a theory with enough evidence to claim a definitive theory on abiogenesis. I think we will have one some day though.
If we find new evidence or someone comes up with a different theory that better explains the evidence I might change what I think. Ideas change in the face of evidence. That is the great thing about ideas is that they can change.

Did she specify masters?
She stated that she HAD a degree in Biology. SO SHE LIED!!

:rolleyes:

·

michaelb's argument is that the big bang did exist and you claim otherwise that is my point
Incorrect. You either can not read or you have comprehension problems.
He clearly stated :
I'll tell you what I think.
Again this is what I think...
I think the big bang is...
I think evolution is...
I think that we currently...

Conclusion : he never stated that the Big Bang did exist or that evolution is... He clearly mentioned 5 X that he thinks that...
Note : to think is NOT the same as "it is".

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]I have no religious beliefs. But if you insist on an answer I would say that my personal preference goes to logic and ratio.

Okey so based on your "logic" and "ratio" how did the universe and life come into being?



Why would I be ashamed of my personal preference? I do not believe in "a" Big Bang.

So you believe in THE big bang :confused:





You repeatedly stated in May 2008 that you HAD a degree in Biology. So you lied than. And you frequently lie here too, and besides that you keep twisting words, post untruths, and make false statements.

I have a bachelors degree DUH!
:rolleyes:

I corrected that **probably while you were typing your reply**
BUT it is still what he believes based on his scientific beliefs and
It IS different than your scientific beliefs SO your beliefs do differ.

[QUOTE]
I have a bachelors degree DUH!
:rolleyes:


You lied then :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=sassyT]


You lied then :rolleyes:

Lol.. I guess credo is confused again.. I have a bachelors degree already and am currently working on my Masters.

I have a bachelors degree already and am currently working on my Masters.
No, I am not confused. But I only can base my approach on the statements you post on this website...
So can you tell me on which "Biology Nursery School" (and when) you obtained that bachelors degree? Any specifications?

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :rolleyes: :D

·

[QUOTE]okey so based on your "logic" and "ratio" how did the universe and life come into being?

Why do you think this is a question that must be answered at this time? What's wrong with, 'I don't know'?

Scientists are working on it. In the meantime, the best answer is that no one is sure about first cause. And that's my biggest problem with many religious people. They arrogantly imagine that they are VERY sure about questions, which no one could possibly have the answer to. You won't trust educated scientists using state of the art instruments, but you'll believe a 2000 year old book written by men who didn't even know the shape of the planet they were standing on. Go figure.

I think evolution is a farce given the strugling fossil evidence and the fact that a not single mutation resulting in adding new information has ever been observed in nature or in a lab. This is just one of the many unproven assuption the theory depends on.

Even if there wasn't a single fossil to go on, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming! I honestly don't know how you are about to become a biologist, but you should keep these ridiculous assertions to yourself. Otherwise, you are sure to be laughed out of the workplace. That is, if you somehow manage to land a job in this field in the first place (which you almost certainly won't if you spout this kind of stuff to a prospective employer).

True very true with many careers you have to keep your personal beliefs to yourself and go along with the status quo unless you can find a job in your field that follows your same belief system.

True very true with many careers you have to keep your personal beliefs to yourself and go along with the status quo unless you can find a job in your field that follows your same belief system.So as a biologist it's OK for sassy to assert that all species of animals and plants arrived on earth at the same time? What kind of job does one get as a biologist with that mindset?

Why do you think this is a question that must be answered at this time? What's wrong with, 'I don't know'?

If Credo doesn't know he should just admit and say so... instead of claiming that a big bang created the universe. :rolleyes:


Scientists are working on it. In the meantime, the best answer is that no one is sure about first cause.

Good, so if you are not even sure why do you expect me to believe in an unproven big bang theory?


And that's my biggest problem with many religious people. They arrogantly imagine that they are VERY sure about questions, which no one could possibly have the answer to.

I don't have the answers but I have faith in a God I know exists based on my personal experience with him. If you don't believe in him, fine, I couldn't care less.. believe me... but just leave us believers alone. Don't come on religious forums to promote your own faith in unproven scientific theories and try and pass them off as facts.
I know everything there is to know about evolution and the big bang and I know it enough about it to know that there are a lot of scientific problems with the theories that make their validity virtually impossible.
The only thing holding theses tattered theories together, is desperate athiests like yourself who want to hold on to the notion, despite lack of evidence, because the alternive (God) is not acceptable to your athiestic doctrine.



You won't trust educated scientists using state of the art instruments, but you'll believe a 2000 year old book written by men who didn't even know the shape of the planet they were standing on. Go figure.

Yes you are right I don't share the same trust and faith you have in scientific theories that have not been proven to be TRUE. I do however have faith in a God who used over 40 different men who lived in totally different times and locations, and yet came up with a word that was consistent.

And just as an FYI the Bible, thousands of years ago, had already established that the earth was spherical in the book of psalms, while scientists just a few hundred years ago were afraid to fall off the edge of the earth.
Scientists are only now beginning to catch up with scientific principles the Bible had already established THOUSANDS of years ago.

So as a biologist it's ok for sassy to assert that all species of animals and plants arrived on earth at the same time? What kind of job does one get as a biologist with that mindset?

I think the bigger question is, why would one want to become a biologist with that mindset? :confused:

Maybe I should become a nun...

I think the bigger question is, why would one want to become a biologist with that mindset? :confused:

Maybe I should become a nun...I'm on my way to teaching others about the benefits of religion. I'm currently getting a PhD in Religious studies.

I think the bigger question is, why would one want to become a biologist with that mindset? :confused:

Maybe I should become a nun...

Lol... As far as I remember believing in a mythical one cell creature that crawls out of a promordial vegie soup and morphs into everything we see today, is not a prerequisite to being a biologist. :D

True very true with many careers you have to keep your personal beliefs to yourself and go along with the status quo unless you can find a job in your field that follows your same belief system.

But biology and evolution are NOT belief systems, no matter how hard and often you insist that they are.

But biology and evolution are NOT belief systems, no matter how hard and often you insist that they are.

Biology is not a Belief because it consists of studies done on things that can be observed tested and repeated... but the evolution is a belief system.

But biology and evolution are NOT belief systems, no matter how hard and often you insist that they are.

Did I say they were the same thing??
I have no idea how you managed to twist that when all I was doing was agreeing with you
Therefore you must be contradicting yourself,
Seems to me you must be saying they are the same thing then

Did I say they were the same thing????


I don't know why these Darwinists like to quate evolution with Biology. :rolleyes:
It is not the same thing.

I dont know why these Darwinists like to quate evolution with Biology. :rolleyes:
it is not the same thing.Very intertwined:
Graduate Biology Program (http://www.bu.edu/biology/graduate_programs.html)

Sassy you also never answered my question about the fact that evolution has been proven in a lab. If you are now going to change your line of thinking or are you going to ignore evidence and go with your religious ideas instead?
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)

Good, so if you are not even sure why do you expect me to believe in an unproven big bang theory?

I don't expect you to believe in the big bang. I'm not sure what I believe about it (so, I don't know is my answer). I do however, trust what leading scientists say. There are now several different theories some having to do with multi-verses and 11 dimensions. My stance is wait and see. It's also possible we may never have an answer to first cause or a-biogenesis.


I don't have the answers but I have faith in a God I know exists based on my personal experience with him.

There you go again. You don't know God exists. You have faith God exists. To claim that you have some definitive knowledge or experience that no one else has, is arrogant. This knowledge and experience you speak of, has somehow slipped by the millions and millions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc.


but just leave us believers alone. Don't come on religious forums to promote your own faith in unproven scientific theories and try and pass them off as facts.

I have no problem leaving people like yourself alone. You are obviously proud of your ignorance and wear it like a badge of honor. There is nothing I or anyone else can do for you. But there are some (including myself), who seek to move beyond our ignorance and I certainly will not sit idly by while you try and dumb down these people with your incorrect and uneducated rants.

You say you are studying to become a scientist, yet don't even understand the purpose or process of science. Nothing is ever proven in science. If you need to PROVE things then take up mathematics. Science is about finding the best possible theories to explain things. This is done through making predictions and trying to falsify previous theories. So far, evolution is the best possible explanation for the diversity of life and has yet to make a single bad prediction or be falsified.

Seriously Sassy, you are exposing yourself to be a charlatan. It is incredibly doubtful that you know anything about science, let alone studying to work in the scientific field of biology.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]


I have no problem leaving people like yourself who seem to be proud of their ignorance alone. But there are some (including myself), who to move beyond their own ignorance. I certainly will not sit idly by while you try and dumb down other people with your uneducated rants.

lol why do You equate my disbelief in the validity of such unproven thoeries like the big bang with ignorance... lol i don't get it. If you took time out and did some research instead of just taking everything you are fed at face value, you would actually find that there are many scientific problems with the theory that make it virtually impossible.
LIke i said before i am not ignorant about these subjects, i have studied this at great length and have come to the conclusion that the likely hood of them occurring is zero. So i just don't believe in them. You do. I don't! Why does that bother you? :confused: :rolleyes:


You are becoming a scientist and don't even understand that you do NOT try and PROVE things with science! Nothing is ever proven in science. If you want to PROVE things take up mathematics. Science it about find the best possible theories to explain things. This is done through making predictions and trying to falsify previous theories.

That is not true. Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. Theories on origin can not be science for the simple reason that we cannot observe history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory. I don't know why that is hard for you to accept.


So far, evolution is the best possible explanation for the diversity of life and has yet to make a single bad prediction or be falsified.

It has been falsified many times but like i said, this theory has too many desperate athiests clinging to it despite the fact that it is biologically impossible.
The hidden truth that evolutionists have seldom openly acknowledged is that mutations are genetic mistakes that fail to provide a logical answer to the question as to what fuels the evolutionary development. In fact mutations can not possibly explain the biological diversity in our world. The problem is simply that mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect. Evolutionist do admit to this fundamental flaw in their theory but it is never publicized.

Scientists have never observed a single mutation in the laboratory in nature that adds information to an organism. Coping errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information as the theory of evolution demands.
The fact it that the theory depends entirely upon the unobserved and unproven assumption that random mutations over long periods will result in beneficial improvements in a species vial added information that will be carried in ot future generations because they provide an enhanced opportunity for "survival of the fittest" However scientific research contradicts this underlying assumption of evolution that accidental mutations could ever produce improvements in a species, let alone a transformation to an entirely new species




Seriously Sassy, you are exposing yourself to be a charlatan. It is incredibly doubtful that you know anything about science, let alone studying to work in the scientific field of biology.

Again just because i don't share the same FAITH you have in unproven theories does not make me less of a science student. :rolleyes:

Sassy you also never answered my question about the fact that evolution has been proven in a lab. If you are now going to change your line of thinking or are you going to ignore evidence and go with your religious ideas instead?
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)

Micro evolution is an observable FACT, I have never denied that. Changes WITHIN Species have been observed, however darwinists take the leap of faith that these small changes within species will create an entirely new, never seen before species. Bacteria do evolve and develop new traits to adapt to new environments, however they don't evolve and ceased to be a bacteria and evolved into say, a virus. The bacteria is still bacteria.

So don't get too happy because its not like the bacteria evolved and changed into a guinea pig before their very eyes. The bacteria is still a Bacteria.

Besides that FACT that this bacteria evolved into what could be considered a new species of bacteria since one of the defining traits of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate.

What demonstratable mechanism is in place that prevents microevolution from changing a species into a new species over the course of a million years?

Define what in the DNA makes a certain species it's particular species and how many micro evolutionary changes occur before a species is considered a new species and if you say micro changes can't make a new species what stops those changes from occurring?

How can you be a biology student and not know that..

Bacteria is not a species.

What school are you attending? I'd like to go because based on what you know about biology I could probably get my doctorate there in a few weeks. If you won't tell us what school you go to at least tell us where it is accredited at or that its not accredited.

First, you are misunderstanding my use of the term 'ignorance'. It is not meant to be derogatory. It simply means 'lack of knowledge'. We are all ignorant about many things (some more than others :) ).

Wow, I can actually agree with several things you have to say in your last response! That's such a rarity, I'd like to dwell on them for a sec...

Mainly, that science currently doesn't have much to say with respect to 'first cause' and how life got started. I find your description for the purpose of science to be quite adequate. So let's celebrate our agreement here! If we were together it would call for a toast. You are also very correct with:


mutation by definition are rare errors in a the copying of the genetic code. They are genetic mistakes and as a result are almost always negative or neutral in their effect.

What you are overlooking is that mutations do not fuel evolution, natural selection does. The vast majority of mutations hinder survival. So again, I'm going to try and dwell on what you're right about.

Hopefully, you just need to finish your study of this subject and will soon see how and why The Theory of Evolution is the most sufficient theory we have to date. There is TONS of evidence for it and you cannot overlook the fact that 98% of members of the National Academy of Science fully accept it as FACT! But you seem to get hung up on the word 'prove'. Again, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. I'm surprised you don't know that.

Michaelb Bacteria is not a species.

Oh gosh.. your level of ignorance astounds me.. lol are you serious right now?

You should be embarrassed by that statement

[QUOTE=michealb]Besides that FACT that this bacteria evolved into what could be considered a new species of bacteria since one of the defining traits of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate.


So.. that is just a demonstration of micro evolution which is irrefutable.


What demonstratable mechanism is in place that prevents microevolution from changing a species into a new species over the course of a million years?

Good Question...

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering, macroevolution will be impossible.

We have variaties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution within species) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirly new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not suport Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, tenticles or entirely new traits devalop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (e.g an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.
So like I keep saying, macro evolution takes a leap of faith I am not willing to make. :)

RTFA
The E Coli being able to consume citrate is a new trait. One of the major defining characteristics of the species of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate. Soo... the entire basis for your augment is now plainly wrong. Proven in a lab with repeatable results that new information can be added to DNA through mutation and natural selection.

And yes this is the level of intellect your dealing with(I saw you changed your wording since you apparently can't spell intellect but the point still stands even though you changed your wording). The word bacteria refers to a kingdom not a species. There are many different species that represent the bacteria kingdom. Again if you have a degree in biology I should go test out for my doctorate at your school. Which is accredited with what group again?

Sassy,

You are demonstrating more knowledge than I for one, gave you credit for. I'm pretty excited about that! So you accept micro evolution (that bacteria can evolve into new strains, for instance), but not macro evolution (that animals can evolve into new species), is that correct?

First of all, it's not just millions of years we have to work with, but hundreds of millions of years. Man has been on the scene a couple hundred thousands years at most. So just answer me this question: What sort of evidence for 'speciation' would you be willing to accept for macro evolution? Let's have a civil discourse here, because I am (naively?) thinking we are making progress. Perhaps I can provide you with some examples that will convince you.

One thing you are neglecting to take into consideration that I've mentioned before, is selection pressure. It's not just a matter of mutations 'randomly' developing into new species. If this is what you think is being said, then I can see why you have a problem with it. This would be a ridiculous claim as you point out. The best theory for what drives evolution (the same evolution that you admit exists at the micro level), is called 'natural selection'. So is there room to grow from here?

Yes Christians do believe in micro evolution and adaptive evolution.
Not species evolving/changing from one thing to another though.

RTFA
The E Coli being able to consume citrate is a new trait. One of the major defining characteristics of the species of E Coli is that it can't digest citrate. Soo... the entire basis for your augment is now plainly wrong. Proven in a lab with repeatable results that new information can be added to DNA through mutation and natural selection.

Again this is a perfect example of MICRO evolution this not "new" information it is specialisation within the bacteria.
Let me explain. We see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenarative mutation. This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren't able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information, which says nothing for Macro evo. Scientists have seen bacteria become antibiotic resistant. They have seen bacteria become bigger from mutations. But have they ever seen bacteria become anything other than bacteria? NO
In fact, with over a hundred years of work with Ecoli behind us, (at 20 minutes per generation time, that's over 2 1/5 MILLION generations of ecoli minimum that have been witnessed you do the math), and despite forcing or encouraging mutations, they still cannot get anything but E.coli.

Bottom line, no matter what traits your example of bacteria has developed, it is STILL BACTERIA 2 1/5 million (per 20min) generations later. So please stop trying to pass of evidence of micro as evidence for macro evolution. If you are going to show me a bacterium that evolved, show me one that evolved and changed not a virus, a fungus or heck, even a bird ;)



And yes this is the level of intellect your dealing with(I saw you changed your wording ????since you apparently can't spell intellect but the point still stands even though you changed your wording). The word bacteria refers to a kingdom not a species. There are many different species that represent the bacteria kingdom. Again if you have a degree in biology I should go test out for my doctorate at your school. Which is accredited with what group again?

I don't know what you are even talking about here... lol Seriously, I am confused. You are the one that said bacteria can not have "species". :confused:

Whatever :rolleyes:

I said that bacteria is not a species. E coli is a species of bacteria. If you actually knew anything about biology you would know the difference and that there are six kingdoms in biology (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria). Calling something bacteria is like calling something an animal. What the experiment showed was one species becoming a new species and adding information to it's DNA. Still in the Eubacteria kingdom but a new species non the less.

I however feel the need to completely call you out since you don't understand this. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before thinking that maybe you were going to a christian school to get your biology degree but now...

I am calling you a flat out liar who doesn't even know enough about biology to pass a high school class.

Yes, liar liar pants on fire, sitting on a telephone wire.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]Sassy,

You are demonstrating more knowledge than I for one, gave you credit for. I'm pretty excited about that! So you accept micro evolution (that bacteria can evolve into new strains, for instance), but not macro evolution (that animals can evolve into new species), is that correct?

Correct i have no qualms with believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins or fruit flies (macroevolution).


First of all, it's not just millions of years we have to work with, but hundreds of millions of years. Man has been on the scene a couple hundred thousands years at most.

This is an assuption made by scientists who believe in evolution, however as i have pointed out before.. the age of the earth is unknowable. The methods used by scientists to date the earth employ a number of assumptions that can not be veryfied. If the assuptions are accurate, then we are maybe talking billions of years, however there is no way to verify the validy and/or accuracy of these assuptions used. Time is not even a factor because bacteria have over 2 million generations in just 20 minutes and we have not observed bacteria cease to be bacteria and evolve into something totally different.

As far as man goes, i do not believe man is hundreds of thousands of years old considering the fact that documented human history only goes back about 5K-6K years.


So just answer me this question: What sort of evidence for 'speciation' would you be willing to accept for macro evolution? Let's have a civil discourse here, because I am (naively?) thinking we are making progress. Perhaps I can provide you with some examples that will convince you.

I doubt you can because the evidence mutations that add "new" information just does not exists. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic enginering. Like i have said before, mutation in human hair may change color or texture or basic traits of the hair but we have not observed mutations that add new information such that the hair becomes feathers, scales or tenticles etc.


One thing you are neglecting to take into consideration that I've mentioned before, is selection pressure. It's not just a matter of mutations 'randomly' developing into new species. If this is what you think is being said, then I can see why you have a problem with it. This would be a ridiculous claim as you point out. The best theory for what drives evolution (the same evolution that you admit exists at the micro level), is called 'natural selection'. So is there room to grow from here?

I do not reject natural selection when it is not defined as a tautology. This completely naturalistic mechaanism observed in nature today is responsible for small adaptations, not radical genome mutation that evolution ultimately predicts has to happen. This is what has been observed, smal changes and that is all "creationism" has ever predicted to happen in organisms from natural selection. It is far more based off scientific observations, but evolutinists extrapolate from observed data to conclude things that fit their pre-concluded assumption of naturalism and macro evolution

a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more "children" In this sense, nature "selects" genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constently decreasing in general. This is what natural selection is.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not "increased". The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is just another example of natural selection producing micro (not macro) evolution.

I believe in micro evolution. I just don't believe in the unproven theory of evolution from ameboa to man.

I said that bacteria is not a species. E coli is a species of bacteria. If you actually knew anything about biology you would know the difference and that there are six kingdoms in biology (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria). Calling something bacteria is like calling something an animal. What the experiment showed was one species becoming a new species and adding information to it's DNA. Still in the Eubacteria kingdom but a new species non the less.

I however feel the need to completely call you out since you don't understand this. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before thinking that maybe you were going to a christian school to get your biology degree but now...

I am calling you a flat out liar who doesn't even know enough about biology to pass a high school class.

Yes, liar liar pants on fire,:mad: sitting on a telephone wire.

Lol.. lol... are you serious? This is what an intelligent debate has descended too?. lol play ground name calling?
Oh gosh... nice

I call them as I see them and at least you understood that part.

You have revealed yourself as someone who will do anything to push your religious agenda without regards for morals or facts and should loose any respect that anyone on this site gave you. Just my belief.

This is what an intelligent debate has descended too??
No, that all changed already when you showed up...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Well you all stay in your own playgrounds I'm going with the hokie pokie being what it all about. Play nice no throwing sand out of the sand box!!

Well you all stay in your own playgrounds I'm going with the hokie pokie being what it all about. Play nice no throwing sand out of the sand box!!!
Will that in any way help in answering the question "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?"

;)

·

Doesn't look like you have any answers either
Your only answer is you think
But can't even get you to answer WHAT you do think
Only what you do not believe.

Doesn't look like you have any answers either
your only answer is you think but can't even get you to answer WHAT you do think
only what you do not believe.
Silly Linda. Really silly.

:rolleyes:

·

? Silly that you can not answer because you have no idea?

? silly that you can not answer because you have no idea?
Silly Linda. Really silly.

:rolleyes:

·

Well you should be having a hootin' good time by now then!

Pleasure entertaining you!

Well you should be having a hootin' good time by now then!
Pleasure entertaining you!!
I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.
And your arguments are now so poor that it becomes too silly to continue...
Enjoy your frustrations. Better give up Linda : you are no match for me.
Good night!

:rolleyes:

·

LOL I love how you THINK I am frustrated! More of your stereo typing??

Linda : you are no match for me. Good night!--ha dream on!

I call them as I see them and at least you understood that part.

You have revealed yourself as someone who will do anything to push your religious agenda without regards for morals or facts and should loose any respect that anyone on this site gave you. Just my belief.

We were having an intelligent debate and you were giving your points and I was giving mine. When you realised that your so called "evidence" was going no where (considering, as I pointed out, your evidence was for Micro not Macro evo) so you resorted to play ground name calling.. . lol sheer display of defeat.
I am willing to continue the debate with you if you believe you have anymore evidence you would like to present for your case because obviously your e coli bacteria point has fallen flat on its face.

I would also like to add that my disbelief in the theory of evolution is completely and utterly independent of my religious beliefs. My disbelief in the theory is simply because of what knowledge I have gained through studying biology (which I have a strong passion for) and realising that the evidence for Macro evolution is non existent in both findings from lab research as well as the fossil evidence to name a few. So your condescending remarks about my religion just fly right over my head, because I was a non-believer in evolution long before I became a saved Christian so there is no agenda there, I just don't believe based on what has been observed in biology. :)

I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.
And your arguments are now so poor that it becomes too silly to continue ...
Enjoy your frustrations. Better give up Linda : you are no match for me.
Good night!

:rolleyes:

·


Lol...
Gees.. this man is seriously even on this religious forum at odd hours of the night.
**unbelievable**

[QUOTE]Correct I have no qualms with believing animals of different species such as the wolf, coyote, and fox all may have shared a common canine ancestor (microevolution), but the line gets drawn when evolutionists insist that these species also share a common ancestor with dolphins or fruit flies (macroevolution).

I think this is an area where you need to do a little bit more reading/studying. Micro evolution (small changes within a species), is what leads to macro evolution. These very minute changes occur very gradually over an immense period! It's not like a mutation occurs and one species gives birth to another (at least not normally. Interestingly enough I have recently heard about a species that IS suspected of giving birth to a completely different species. But lets leave that alone for now).


This is an assuption made by scientists who believe in evolution, however as I have pointed out before.. the age of the earth is unknowable.

Sassy... Please, please, please, come to your senses about this! The overwhelming majority of accredited scientists put the earth's age in the billions of years (around 4.5 billion, in fact). How on earth can you dispute this? This is where you are losing mass amounts of credibility with anyone who knows anything about science. There are many different 'clocks' used to determine the age of the earth. All calibrated according to a completely different set of scientific principles, and ALL show the age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Again, PLEASE look into this further and find that just about every scientist who studies this area is in agreement! There's a reason for that. There is only a small lunatic fringe who want to be debate this and their agenda is almost always to promote Creationism. No REAL scientist takes them seriously and neither should you.


Time is not even a factor because bacteria have over 2 million generations in just 20 minutes and we have not observed bacteria cease to be bacteria and evolve into something totally different.

Now THIS is an interesting point! To be honest, I'm not qualified to give you satisfactory answers for this. I strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net to find these answers. There is a forum section on evolution and many there that are very strong in biology and sciences who could give you very accurate answers. I do know that we have observed evolution in other organisms with short life spans like the fruit fly. But again, I'm not qualified to go into detail. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to research it and get back to you. I wouldn't mind, because I'm sure I'd be learning myself too.


I doubt you can because the evidence mutations that add "new" information just does not exists. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species.

Again, it is not just mutations but selection pressure. A process that occurs gradually over millions, sometime HUNDREDS of millions of years. I'm positive that where you're having trouble is in imagining the immense amount of time involved. You accept it where it makes sense to you. The human brain is geared to conceptualize time in in terms of decades and maybe even centuries, but certainly not in the sense of millions and millions of years. You will never have your real time visual of evolution. It needs to be inferred from the overwhelming evidence we do have. And this does not make the case for evolution any less strong. On the contrary...

The Theory of Evolution is so simple that explained properly a child could understand it. Yet, its explanatory power is incredibly complicated and mind boggling! It literally explains the entirety of life as we know it (but granted it does NOT explain the origin of life). It's because of this that many lay people (and Creationists in particular), are skeptical. But please know that this theory is accepted by fully 98% of the members for the International Academy of Science! This should give you serious pause Sassy, because there's a very good reason for that.

I think this is an area where you need to do a little bit more reading/studying. Micro evolution (small changes within a species), is what leads to macro evolution. These very minute changes occur very gradually over an immense period! It's not like a mutation occurs and one species gives birth to another (at least not normally. Interestingly enough I have recently heard about a species that IS suspected of giving birth to a completely different species. But lets leave that alone for now).

Yes, the assumption you make is that micro will eventually lead to macro, but there is no evidence of this in nature or in what has been observed in lab research or in fossil record. In fact the evidence is quite the contrary.



Now THIS is an interesting point! To be honest, I'm not qualified to give you satisfactory answers for this. I strongly suggest you go to richarddawkins.net to find these answers. There is a forum section on evolution and many there that are very strong in biology and sciences who could give you very accurate answers. I do know that we have observed evolution in other organisms with short life spans like the fruit fly. But again, I'm not qualified to go into detail. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to research it and get back to you. I wouldn't mind, because I'm sure I'd be learning myself too.

Maybe you are the one who needs to do a little reading on bacteria and you will find that no matter how many mutations there are, whether it is by natural selection or random, Bacteria still remains bacteria, in never evolves into anything other than BACTERIA even after 2.5 million generations. Doesn't that tell you something?




Again, it is not just mutations but selection pressure.

i already addressed this and you ignored it...

[
Sassy.... Please, please, please, come to your senses about this! The overwhelming majority of accredited scientists put the earth's age in the billions of years (around 4.5 billion, in fact). How on earth can you dispute this? This is where you are losing mass amounts of credibility with anyone who knows anything about science. There are many different 'clocks' used to determine the age of the earth. All calibrated according to a completely different set of scientific principles, and ALL show the age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old. Again, PLEASE look into this further and find that just about every scientist who studies this area is in agreement! There's a reason for that. There is only a small lunatic fringe who want to be debate this and their agenda is almost always to promote Creationism. No REAL scientist takes them seriously and neither should you.



okey, I wanted to address this separately. plse read carefully

I did a research paper on radio dating so I have done a lot of research on this. One thing you need to realise is that the methods used for dating the earth rely on a number of unverifiable assuptions. So if arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption, the validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weekest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation.

Now I am not going to go into all the scientific assumptions but to illustrate let me put it this way... suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radio dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.
When dating a rock, the geochronalogist must first assume the rock’s age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning so how can the date be truth? It is impossible to know!
The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. So uf all of these assamptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even Just one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.

so lob the difference between you and me is that you take everything "scientists" tell you at face value because you have been brain washed to think that scientists are always right, but I don't just take things from scientists at face value because I know there is almost always an agenda behind it certain fields of science. Even in medicine. Scientists will pass a drug as "safe" and you find out later that the pharmaceutical company is who funded the research.
So don't think I don't believe in these theories like evo because of my religion. It has nothing to do with that. I was into biology before I ever became a christian. I have just always been very analytical. ;)

okey, i wanted to adress this separately. plse read carefully

Without even getting into the various methods used for dating (and there are more of them than just measuring the decay rate through carbon dating, etc. And they ALL point to an earth being roughly 4 billion years old). But forget that. I'd like to concentrate on your comment about how I take scientists at face value, while you do not...

Do you REALLY think that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz with each other and collaborating to fake the age of the earth so they can further some agenda?? Does that really make sense to you? You think they couldn't raise money for their endeavors unless they deceive us?

That makes no sense, especially when you consider that religious people make up the vast majority of our world's population. It would make sense the other way around... Alter the facts to appease the religious people so they have the majority on their side. To think that 98% of all scientists are involved in some type of conspiracy is pure paranoia on your part Sassy.

Also, I'll bet you trust science just fine when it comes to your health, or when you get on a plane. I'm sure you take what they say about aerodynamics at face value when you're 30,000 feet in the air.

amirite? ;)

Sassy, a very important part of science is to address possible errors. Scientist believe that the age of the earth is 4.55 billion years to within 1% error. Science estimates how wrong it might be by looking at the assumptions we have made, and looking at how well agreed different lines of evidence are. A 1% error is absolutely amazing.

so lob the difference between you and me is that you take everything "scientists" tell you at face value because you have been brain washed to think that scientists are always right, but i dont just take things from scientists at face value because i know there is almost always an agenda behind it certain fields of science.

Again, I'll bet you take science at face value when you're 30k ft. in the sky on an airplane. :)

We can't make any progress with this, since I don't know what else to say. It's like telling me photo synthesis or the speed of light are just scientists trying to fool me. 98% Sassy. If you really think they are ALL lying, there is nothing I'm going to say that will convince you. I'd just remind you that the majority of people on earth ARE religious! So if I were a scientist trying to cater to the public in order to receive funding for my projects, I'd be more likely to bend my data to cow-tow to believers, than to atheists. That just makes sense. Also...

What do you think of ring species? Do you accept that? We should move this discussion to the science forum. There is more than ample evidence for ring species. I'm curious if you would deny that. Peace.

I am going into horizontal mode. It's 2 am here.

... this man is seriously even on this religious forum at odd hours of the night.
But if I do not "sign off" you are the first one to suggest I skipped off, because of your "arguments"...

:rolleyes:

·

But if I do not "sign off" you are the first one to suggest I skipped off, because of your "arguments".....



·

No, I just find it funny that an old man is up all hours of the night harassing people about something he claims to find as ridiculous as the boogyman... lol :rolleyes:

Without even getting into the various methods used for dating (and there are more of them than just measuring the decay rate through carbon dating, etc. And they ALL point to an earth being roughly 4 billion years old). But forget that. I'd like to concentrate on your comment about how I take scientists at face value, while you do not...

Do you REALLY think that 98% of all scientists are in kahootz with each other and collaborating to fake the age of the earth so they can further some agenda?!?!?! Does that really make sense to you? You think they couldn't raise money for their endeavors unless they deceive us?

That makes no sense, especially when you consider that religious people make up the vast majority of our world's population. It would make sense the other way around... Alter the facts to appease the religious people so they have the majority on their side. To think that 98% of all scientists are involved in some type of conspiracy is pure paranoia on your part Sassy.

Also, I'll bet you trust science just fine when it comes to your health, or when you get on a plane. I'm sure you take what they say about aerodynamics at face value when you're 30,000 feet in the air.

amirite? ;)

Lobroster Don't get me wrong I have no problems with science that is factual, observable and verifiable. For example gravity is a irrefutable scientific fact. Like I have said before science is the effort to discover, understand how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. History is not science. Scientists were not present to observe when the earth began. All they can do is spectulate, assume, hyothesise, theorise etc but they can never know for sure. It is impossible to know how old the earth is.

A 4.3 billion year old earth as I have illustrated is not a fact because the methods used to date the earth rely on a number of unverifiable assuptions. I don't know why that is so hard for you to accept.
If we go back to my candle burning analogy lets say I don't know how long the candle was to start with, and I also do not know that the rate of burning is constant and there is no way to verify either, I can say "i assume the candle was 12inches to start with and I assume the burn rate has been constant therefor according to my calculation, this candle has been burning for 30 minutes"
Given my assumptions, dont you think it would be irrational for me to claim my "30minute" estimate is absolute factual truth?

[QUOTE=lobrobster]Again, I'll bet you take science at face value when you're 30k ft. in the sky on an airplane. :)

Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.


We can't make any progress with this, since I don't know what else to say. It's like telling me photo synthesis or the speed of light are just scientists trying to fool me.

No.. lol you are making an invalid comparison here.. Photosythesis is an observable scientific fact and does not rely on any unverifiable assumptions.


98% Sassy. If you really think they are ALL lying, there is nothing I'm going to say that will convince you. I'd just remind you that the majority of people on earth ARE religious! So if I were a scientist trying to cater to the public in order to receive funding for my projects, I'd be more likely to bend my data to cow-tow to believers, than to atheists. That just makes sense. Also...

I don't know why you are deliberately exaggerating my statement and taking it out of context. I did not say all scientists are lyers. Of course not, I am going to be a scientist myself so why would I say that about myself. All I am trying to say is there are certain branches of science that are not reliable.. because of the simple fact that they have to rely on assuptions that can not be verified as true. For example the age of the earth.. can not be observed tested or repeated in the lab because it is history. Scientists can estimate using unverifiable assuptions as a premise. The result is not reliable because there is no way to verify if the assuptions made are accurate.

No, i just find it funny that an old man is up all hours of the night harrassing people about something he claims to find as ridiculous as the boogyman
"harrassing" ? I noted that you had not used that ridiculous claim already some 24 hours, so it had to turn up again somewhere... And yes it did... Here !

How funny that so far you never have been able to specify that harassing. Where, when, how. Never.
Yes, you may say that I post views you disagree with. But harassing is something different, and I know for sure that anyone who is really harassing someone on this board would be banned very soon.
So why am I still allowed to post my views here? It's rather simple, is it not, sassyT ? Just because I do not harass anyone. So you are making false claims. Nothing new here, isn't it, sassyT ?

:rolleyes:

·

[QUOTE]Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.

So let's just cut to the chase. Are you saying that YOU know more than 98% of scientists? Because it's a fact that AT LEAST that number will tell you the earth is 4 billion years old.

It's also a F-A-C-T that a similar percentage strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today (although they would also admit to not knowing how life was first sparked into existence).

So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists? Don't you think you're being just a tad bit arrogant and full of yourself? It's like me claiming I could've hit more homers tonight than Hamilton's 29 in the derby. Please...

So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists?
That is what religion does to some fanatic followers, specially those sensitive to creationist brainwashing. If I see the non-scientific approach by sassyT here in all topics, and her closed minded creationist thinking clouding her real scientific thinking, I doubt if ever she will be capable of obtaining an official degree in Biology. Science is about facts and support. Religion is about belief.

As always : everyone may BELIEVE whatever he/she prefers to believe. But reality is almost always something else...

:rolleyes:

·

Talk about going OFF subject on posts!!
My question was

Objective/subjective how does it disprove God?

The question is unanswerable. Those who are not religious, who live their daily lives without the need for a god, have no need to prove that something they don't see/doesn't exist (i.e. proving a negative). Those that believe in a god do so out of faith and require no proof whatsoever.

Yeah and we did establish that so I suppose this 'topic' is unofficially closed

yeah and we did establish that so I suppose this 'topic' is unofficially closed
Hmmmmm I wonder why you are so eager for this topic to be closed...
If it is closed for you : fine. Than we won't see you back reacting here anymore.
And - although you may think that would be a great loss to humanity - many will feel otherwise.
Why would others not be allowed to continue here in this discussion ?

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

I did use the word UN[officially AND I DID state that there is nothing more to add to my question which has gone off topic which YOU yourself criticize me for on YOUR posts
SO
Hmmm I wonder why you want to keep this topic open when there is nothing more to add to
Answering my question without being off topic or repetitious??
So continue with your discussion but if it is off topic then DON'T criticize my being off topic on your posts or
I WILL refer back to this post:rolleyes: :D

NOhelp,
You can ask a mod to close the question since you are the original asker.

BUT I am waiting with great anticipation to hear Cred0's great words of wisdom :D

I did use the word UN[officially
Hereby my apologies. I did not realize it was your question.
Still I find it an interesting subject...

:rolleyes:

·

Basically I started this to get Christians to realize that their going on and on trying to prove God is a waste of time because as I have always said you can not prove God but as you can see a few here DO try to. As has been stated AND I have stated many times God could be standing right in front of some non believers and atheists and they would STILL deny he exists so what is the point of debating objective/subjective.

I will not even argue the age of the earth because as I have said before I believe the earth and whatever else was created before the 6 day creation. Like a phase 1 and 2
That is my belief and to me it adds up.

.... could be standing right in front of some non believers and atheists ....
Non believers are atheists !

And yes : a most probably non-existing entity could stand in front of someone and be invisible. Everything is possible, though not very likely.

:)

·

Non believers are atheists !
·Not entirely true. NOhelp is also a non-believer: there are many gods that she does not believe in.

I believe in God I just don't care to get into all the debates and I see no need to try and prove anything.
I will state what I believe every now and then. I will say the Bible says every now and then. I just don't see the point in the endless disagreeing and everybody going away still believing what they did in the first place.

I figured Cred would be the first to say there is a distinction between non believer and atheist because when people say "I knew an atheist that became a Christian" he is the first to say that they were not really an atheist then. So if they weren't really an atheist and they became a Christian what would they have been then?

Not entirely true. NOhelp is also a non-believer: there are many gods that she does not believe in.

Atheism
A Theism
A= no or without
Theism is belief in god/gods
Atheism means no belief in a god or gods or being without belief in a god or gods.

The term Non-believer does NOT refer to only one (Christian) god. It refers to all gods.
The term means : no belief in god/gods.

Hence therefore a Non-believer is an Atheist, and an Atheist is a Non-believer.

:)

·

I figured Cred would be the first to say there is a distinction between non believer and atheist because when people say "I knew an atheist that became a Christian" he is the first to say that they were not really an atheist then. So if they weren't really an atheist and they became a Christian what would they have been then?
Why do you - once again - try to put words in my mouth ?

People can change their mind... Agnostics are actually acknowledging that they do not know what is "true".

But in essence : if people are really fully convinced of their world view, they would never change it. That goes for both theists and atheists !

:)

·

I remember you saying that years ago on Answerway when somebody said something about atheists someday believing in God. Your reply was about real atheists would never become Christians.
So, at any rate, however you want to word things... wouldn't an agnostic be considered a non believer and distinguished from non believing atheists --which was my point of distinction in the long run.

I remember you saying that years ago on Answerway when somebody said something about atheists someday believing in God. Your reply was about real atheists would never become Christians.
But where is the context of that statement ?
And yes : really convinced Atheists will remain Atheists, just as really convinced Theists will remain Theists (well : in general of course).


So, at any rate, however you want to word things......wouldn't an agnostic be considered a non believer and distinguished from non believing atheists --which was my point of distinction in the long run.
There are three different groups in respect to religion :

1 - Theists : those who believe in god/gods.
2 - Atheists : those who do not believe in god/gods.
3 - Agnostics : those who can not decide if god/gods exist.

Personally I am somewhere in group 2 leaning towards group 3 : based on the (lacking) evidence I do not believe in the existence of god/gods. I also do not see any need for their existence. The "Oxham's Razor" effect , I suppose...

And I doubt if ever there will be real objective supporting evidence for any of these positions.

:)

·

Okay points taken
But my point is that I used the word non believe instead of agnostic
Because I have a hard time thinking of the right word at times

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours".

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours".

Why don't you give credit to Stephen Roberts for this quote?

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

According to the definition of atheist, I am not an athiests so I think Stephen roberts made a foolish statement. :rolleyes:

So let's just cut to the chase. Are you saying that YOU know more than 98% of scientists? Because it's a fact that AT LEAST that number will tell you the earth is 4 billion years old.


It's also a F-A-C-T that a similar percentage strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today (although they would also admit to not knowing how life was first sparked into existence).

So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists? Don't you think you're being just a tad bit arrogant and full of yourself? It's like me claiming I could've hit more homers tonight than Hamilton's 29 in the derby. Please....

Lol... ***Sigh*** you really amaze me. I don't know why this simple concept is so hard for you to grasp. The majority of Scientists BELIEVE the earth is 4.3 billion years because they BELIEVE the assuptions they use as a basis for their investigation, are accurate. Are the assumptions used in the methods of dating the earth accurate?? NOBODY KNOWS and there is NO WAY of VERIFYING the VALIDITY OR ACCURACY of these ASSUMPTIONS.
Let me remind everyone what an assuption is

As·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:
Presumption; arrogance.
Logic. A minor premise

I am not arrogant, all I am saying is the 4.3 billion year date is not a 100% FACT and any honest scientist will tell you this. Many scientisits believe the SIX assuptions used are accurate.. they have no way of knowing.
IF the assuptions are in fact accurate then, yes the earth is 4.3 billion years however like I have said 100 times there is no way to verify the accuracy of these six assuptions. If all of the six assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.

So if you believe the earth being is 4.3 billion years old is a FACT that means you have FAITH that the assuptions used are accurate because you don't KNOW that they are accurate.

I didn't give him credit because I didn't remember who said it and I didn't have the time to look it up. I did however remember the quote. Didn't realise I had do to a bibliography for my work.

Showing again that you don't have a decent education. Which I guess it's not your fault, it's really the fault of our school systems and public policy. That's a topic for another time though.

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Let me explain in a way that you might understand.

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of Zeus. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping Zeus.

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping FSM.

Do you understand the quote now?

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of Zeus. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping Zeus.
It all depend on how you define a Non-believer and an Atheist.

Note that the term "denies the existence of" is not a correct description of either a Non-believer or an Atheist. This incorrect description may be caused by the pressure of the religious majority in mankind. Some Non-believers and Atheists indeed deny the existence of god/gods, but the majority of them does not.

The correct description of non-believer is "One who does not believe in god/gods".
That excludes all people who believe in one or more god/gods.

The correct description of an Atheist is "One who has no belief in god/gods or is without belief in god/gods. (There is a slight difference between these two).

Conclusion : a Non-believer is an Atheist, and an Atheist is a non-believer.

All that Christians do is believe in one more God than Non-believers/Atheists do. (Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote?? )

:rolleyes:

·

I didn't give him credit because I didn't remember who said it and I didn't have the time to look it up. I did however remember the quote. Didn't realise I had do to a bibliography for my work.

When you quote somebody and you do not know who said it you can either say
Someone once said
Or you can type
Quote [then the quote] in the search engine and see if it comes up
You can do the same with lyrics to songs
Lyric [then a few words of the song]

All that Christians do is believe in one more God than Non-believers/Atheists do. (Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote?? )

No Cred you did not have to because you put it in your own words.
Of course you can here and now make this your own quote and have others reference YOU :D

When you quote somebody and you do not know ...
Or you state : "Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote ???"

:)

·

Yeah something to show that you acknowledge it as a quote
:D

I figured you all were smart enough to realize when I put it in "quotes" to realize it was a quote since I put it in "quotes". I guess I need to dumb it down and make sure I have time to put bibliography next time.

English Works! Writing: Punctuation & Grammar Review (http://depts.gallaudet.edu/englishworks/writing/proofread.html)
Updated June 1, 2001
Copyright© 1997-present by English Works! At Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.

It is not about dumbing it down. It is about not looking like plagiarism, using quotations alone does not prove it was said by somebody else.

Fine, you got me I was trying to pass it off as my own work and I always put my own words in quotes. If you like you can go back over all my posts and look for other grammar mistakes as well, I'm sure there are plenty. Knock yourself out.

Back on topic I can't disprove a all powerful god but this guy does a good job disproving Christianity.
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 1 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2lplKeqqZk)
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 2 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHyOc2KHXGE&feature=related)
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 3 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_971jgflFSE&feature=related)
For those that can't tell these videos are not my work and I'm not sure they are the work of the guy that posted them either.

It is not about dumbing it down. It is about not looking like plagiarism, using quotations alone does not prove it was said by somebody else.The fact that he used quotations told me it wasn't his words. It's common usage on the internet.

The topic question is "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?"

But I ask myself why that is asked, as the question "objective/subjective how does it prove God?" has not been answered yet??

:rolleyes:

·

I believe it HAS been answered


The question is unanswerable. Those who are not religious, who live their daily lives without the need for a god, have no need to prove that something they don't see/doesn't exist (i.e. proving a negative). Those that believe in a god do so out of faith and require no proof whatsoever.

The topic question is "objective/subjective how does it DISprove God?"

But I ask myself why that is asked, as the real question "objective/subjective how does it PROVE God?" has never been answered yet !

Seems more that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."

So where is that O.S.E. than??

:rolleyes:

·

And where do you get the idea that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."??

and where do you get the idea that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."?????????You're asking how we can prove that god is *not* the power/force behind everything which makes the assumption that he is by default. Is this not correct?

This is the whole crutch of russel's teapot - there's no point in trying to disprove anything that has no evidence for believe it exists in the first place - otherwise we'd be spending all our time trying to disprove celestial teapots etc.

So yes, your question does suggest you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God.

Last post page 19
I agreed that the replies of it not being able to be answered answered the question and I believe I have stated that a couple times here myself as well as others.

I cannot disprove God.
I cannot disprove Allah.
I cannot disprove Odin.
I cannot disprove Krishna.
I cannot disprove Zeus.
I cannot disprove Baal.
I cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

They are all simply stories that I find to be incredibly unbelievable. And you feel the same way I do but with only the one exception. You have no logical justification for choosing God over Krishna. You've done so because of what the people you grew up around believed.

Nobody is asking you to disprove Krishna. It doesn't fall on you to do so. It is the responsibility of Hindus to prove he does exist. You are free to disbelieve in Krishna without proving he doesn't exist.

If you want to change those rules, feel free. But, you're going to have to disprove every deity besides the Christian God before you ask me for anything. Then you get to ask me to disprove that one.

why dont you give credit to Stephen Roberts for this quote?

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

according to the definition of athiest, i am not an athiests so I think Stephen roberts made a foolish statement. :rolleyes:

So you don't disbelieve or deny the existence of Vishnu? What about Wotan and Thor? I didn't realize you were THAT much of a theist Sassy! -lol

Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.

Actually, there is MUCH about the principles of gravity that are not yet understood. In fact, the properties of gravity are more perplexing to scientists than evolution is!



No.. lol you are making an invalid comparison here.. Photosythesis is an observable scientific fact

So is evolution.


... and does not rely on any unverifiable assumptions.

Neither does evolution.


I don't know why you are deliberately exaggerating my statement and taking it out of context.

I really don't mean to, and it's becoming obvious you understand more about science than your posts lead one to believe. Still... I don't know how you are comfortable being among the overwhelmingly small minority who question evolution and the age of the earth. At some point you have to ask yourself why all these other scientists are willing to treat them as fact. No?

[QUOTE=michealb]I didn't give him credit because I didn't remember who said it and I didn't have the time to look it up. I did however remember the quote. Didn't realise I had do to a bibliography for my work.

I just think if you are going to quotes someone word for word the least you can do is give them credit instead of trying to pass the statement off as your own.



Showing again that you don't have a decent education. Which I guess it's not your fault, it's really the fault of our school systems and public policy. That's a topic for another time though.

I would think it is your education level that is questionable considering you don't know that quoting someone's work without giving them credit is called plagiarism and it is illegal. You should have learned that in college.


a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Let me explain in a way that you might understand.

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of Zeus. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping Zeus.

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping FSM.

Do you understand the quote now?


NO.. Correction "Sassy disbelieves but does not deny the existence of Zeus. However Sassy is not an atheist because she believes in God.

The word atheist is actually from the greek word Atheos which means GODLESS. So to say just because I don't believe in some gods, make me "godless" is a missrepresentation of reality.
Also I don't deny the existence of Zeus (or whoever), all I can say about Zeus is I don't know whether he exists or not, so if anything I am agnostic in that respect. ;)

I cannot disprove God.
I cannot disprove Allah.
I cannot disprove Odin.
I cannot disprove Krishna.
I cannot disprove Zeus.
I cannot disprove Baal.
I cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

True so why say they dont exist when you dont know and can't prove it?


They are all simply stories that I find to be incredibly unbelievable.

In your opinion yes, but there are atleast 5 billion people who would disagree with you.


And you feel the same way I do but with only the one exception. You have no logical justification for choosing God over Krishna. You've done so because of what the people you grew up around believed.

this again is your subjective opinion, there is nothing factual about this statement. I for one never grew up around Christians but i am one now. So this fact has already faulsified your empty unsupported claims.


Nobody is asking you to disprove Krishna. It doesn't fall on you to do so. It is the responsibility of Hindus to prove he does exist. You are free to disbelieve in Krishna without proving he doesn't exist.

And you are free also to disbelieve in God without having to prove he does not exist. But dont come on a religious forum and CLAIM God does not exists unless you are willing and able to prove it.


If you want to change those rules, feel free. But, you're going to have to disprove every deity besides the Christian God before you ask me for anything. Then you get to ask me to disprove that one.

No need to do that.
You dont believe in God ... Good for you
we believe in God ... good for us
lets just leave at that.

Originally Posted by shw3nn
I cannot disprove God.
I cannot disprove Allah.
I cannot disprove Odin.
I cannot disprove Krishna.
I cannot disprove Zeus.
I cannot disprove Baal.
I cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

True so why say they don't exist when you don't know and can't prove it?

Exactly

So you don't disbelieve or deny the existence of Vishnu? What about Wotan and Thor? I didn't realize you were THAT much of a theist Sassy! -lol

As I told Michaelb... the word atheist is actually from the greek word Atheos which means GODLESS. So to say just because I don't believe in some gods, make me "godless" is a missrepresentation of reality because I do believe in God.
Also I don't deny the existence of Zeus, Thor Wotan (or whoever), all I can say about them is I don't know whether they exists or not, so if anything I am agnostic in that respect. ;)

It's also a F-A-C-T that a similar percentage strongly supports the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today (although they would also admit to not knowing how life was first sparked into existence).

So what on earth makes you think that you, SassyT, knows more than 98% of all scientists? Don't you think you're being just a tad bit arrogant and full of yourself? It's like me claiming I could've hit more homers tonight than Hamilton's 29 in the derby. Please....

Lol... ***Sigh*** you really amaze me. I don't know why this simple concept is so hard for you to grasp. The majority of Scientists BELIEVE the earth is 4.3 billion years because they BELIEVE the assuptions they use as a basis for their investigation, are accurate. Are the assumptions used in the methods of dating the earth accurate?? NOBODY KNOWS and there is NO WAY of VERIFYING the VALIDITY OR ACCURACY of these ASSUMPTIONS.
Let me remind everyone what an assuption is

As·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:
Presumption; arrogance.
Logic. A minor premise

I am not arrogant, all I am saying is the 4.3 billion year date is not a 100% FACT and any honest scientist will tell you this. Many scientisits believe the SIX assuptions used are accurate.. they have no way of knowing.
IF the assuptions are in fact accurate then, yes the earth is 4.3 billion years however like I have said 100 times there is no way to verify the accuracy of these six assuptions. If all of the six assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.

So if you believe the earth being is 4.3 billion years old is a FACT that means you have FAITH that the assuptions used are accurate because you don't KNOW that they are accurate.

All right then - prove to us that gravity is a fact.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]Actually, there is MUCH about the principles of gravity that are not yet understood. In fact, the properties of gravity are more perplexing to scientists than evolution is!

You may be talking about gravitational theories... all I am talking about is the gravity that is keeping me seated on this chair.:)



I really don't mean to, and it's becoming obvious you understand more about science than your posts lead one to believe. Still... I don't know how you are comfortable being among the overwhelmingly small minority who question evolution and the age of the earth.

The reason is, unlike many scientists, I do not share the same faith in the assuptions used as a premise in both evolution and radio dating.

At some point you have to ask yourself why all these other scientists are willing to treat them as fact. No?

In the same way Christians treat the existence of God as fact without conclusive evidence. It is called faith. Many scientists have a strong faith in unproven theories and the unverifiable assuptions used. A faith I personaly don't share.

As i told Michaelb... the word athiest is actually from the greek word Atheos which means GODLESS. So to say just because i dont believe in some gods, make me "godless" is a missrepresentation of reality because i do believe in God.
Also i dont deny the existance of Zeus, Thor Wotan (or whoever), all i can say about them is i dont know whether they exists or not, so if anything i am agnostic in that respect. ;)


I think the main point is that you know perfectly well what it's like not to believe in a particular god or faith. Just as you are agnostic about Zeus, Thor, and Wotan, I am agnostic about your god. I just include your god in the same category as you put the rest of the gods.

I think the main point is that you know perfectly well what it's like not to believe in a particular god or faith. Just as you are agnostic about Zeus, Thor, and Wotan, I am agnostic about your god. I just include your god in the same category as you put the rest of the gods.

Yes, which makes you an atheist/agnostic. So how am I an atheist when I believe in God? :confused:

Yes, which makes you an atheist/agnostic. So how am i an athiest when i believe in God?? :confused:

You're quibbling over semantics here. Atheism simply means lack of belief. Even in the definition you pulled, it states 'god OR gods'. You are an atheist with respect to Vishnu and so am I. You are an atheist about many of the gods you could believe in and so am I. I just go one god further than you do. Let's not quibble over the number of gods we each don't believe in.

You're quibbling over semantics here. Atheism simply means lack of belief. Even in the definition you pulled, it states 'god OR gods'. You are an atheist with respect to Vishnu and so am I. You are an atheist about many of the gods you could believe in and so am I. I just go one god further than you do. Let's not quibble over the number of gods we each don't believe in.

aTHEIST does not mean lack of belief. It means "with out God/gods". Theist means "with god". I am not an athiest I am a theist because I believe in God. Atheist like I said in the original greek means godless. You are godless, I am not. You are an atheist, I am not.
I do not deny the existence of Zeus, Thor, Krishna etc.. I say I don't know whether they exist or not therefore, I am, if anything, agnostic in regards to other gods besides my own.

Cool, I'm a theist as I believe in our holy FSM (god bless his noodly appendage).

RAmen.

why dont you give credit to Stephen Roberts for this quote?

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

according to the definition of athiest, i am not an athiests so I think Stephen roberts made a foolish statement. :rolleyes:

Even your own definition says disbelieves OR denies the existence of God or gods.

You disbelieve the existence of gods there for you are an atheist.

I'm course assuming that the definition is your own work since you didn't site any sources for that.

You should watch the videos I posted earlier they explain why christianity is little more than a sun worshipping cult. He even points out the obvious things like your day of worship is SUNday not Jesusday or Godday. Haven't you ever wondered why?

[QUOTE=michealb]Even your own definition says disbelieves OR denies the existence of God or gods.

You disbelieve the existence of gods there for you are an atheist.

If you BELIEVE I am an athiestist then I will not argue with you because the reality is I am a theist so we will just leave it at that. :)






You should watch the videos I posted earlier they explain why christianity is little more than a sun worshipping cult. He even points out the obvious things like your day of worship is SUNday not Jesusday or Godday. Haven't you ever wondered why?

I am not able to veiw YouTube at work but even if I could I doubt I would even waste my time on such conspiracy theories.

aTHEIST does not mean lack of belief. It means "with out God/gods". Theist means "with god". I am not an athiest I am a theist because I believe in God. Atheist like I said in the original greek means godless. You are godless, I am not. You are an atheist, I am not.
I do not deny the existence of Zeus, Thor, Krishna etc.. I say I don't know whether they exist or not therefore, I am, if anything, agnostic in regards to other gods besides my own.

You quoted:

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

This does NOT say godless or without god. It says, 'disbelieves or denies the existence of'.


I do not deny the existence of Zeus, Thor, Krishna etc.. I say I don't know whether they exist

Well, this is exactly what I say about your god. I do not deny his existence. I simply have no compelling reason to think that he exists. In the Same way I presume, that you view Zeus, Thor, and Krishna.

He even points out the obvious things like your day of worship is SUNday not Jesusday or Godday. Haven't you ever wondered why?
The word Sunday and why Christians worship on that day has nothing to do with the sun. If you really want to know why, ask me. It's too long to explain here and is mostly off topic.

The days of the week in English are named for:
SUNday, MOONday, WODEN'sday(Wednesday), THORSday, that's all I can remember off the top of my head. :) Two thousand years ago in the Middle East, I imagine there were different names for each day. ;)

Atheists are: *without* belief in god, gods.
That's all by definition. Of course, individual atheists may have other thoughts about god, gods.

I haven't read all the posts yet, but your original question is an impossibility. The is not nor can there ever be objective evidence of any god.

And even if such a being presented itself to a large group, it would be denied. It would be called a hoax, a delusion, or ET. :rolleyes: ;)

[QUOTE=lobrobster]You quoted:

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

This does NOT say godless or without god. It says, 'disbelieves or denies the existence of'.

Like I said you obviously don't know what an atheist is if you are going to call me one.. lol
But if that is what you want to believe I will not argue with you anymore because the reality is I am a theist.





Well, this is exactly what I say about your god. I do not deny his existence. I simply have no compelling reason to think that he exists. In the Same way I presume, that you view Zeus, Thor, and Krishna.

So you are an agnostic. You just don't know whether God exists or not.

And even if such a being presented itself to a large group, it would be denied. It would be called a hoax, a delusion, or ET. :rolleyes: ;)


This is your subjective BELIEF not fact.

Closed