[michealb]

And the mass of energy is zero.

So energy is not matter.

I don't know why or care any more why you don't get this. I'm just going to go with there is something wrong with you. From your own post

In the early part of the twentieth century, however, German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (1879–1955) demonstrated that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.

The reason it says this is because matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. If you won't trust your own post your beyond my help on this.

I used to be an evolutionist, and it was the evidence that convinced me that I was wrong.

I'm sorry that someone gave you bad information.

Microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is not a fact and has never been proven. No matter how many times you say it, it is no more true than it was the last time that you said it.

"Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science."
(Source: Professor Macieji Giertych, B.A. M.A. from Oxon, Ph.D. from Toronto, D.Sc. From Poznan, Head of Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Science, Institute of Dendrology, Poland)

One guy who despite his degrees doesn't know what he is talking about does not make a controversy. The vast majority of biologist feel that the facts point to evolution. With good reason because all of the evidence points to evolution the only people that feel there is a controversy are people who are trying to push their religious agenda.

Actually, science often works by means of eliminating options. For example, do you know how many of the planets today are being discovered? By looking at the effects on various suns (wobble in their rotation) and then eliminating other possibilities.

Right they assumed it was because of planets not that it was caused by a giant can of cheese whiz. They didn't rule out a giant can of cheese whiz but they still discounted it. Under you logic since they haven't ruled it out they should consider it to be a possibility. However until we find a giant can of cheese whiz orbiting a planet that would be stupid to assume. So until we prove the super natural you can't use it for any cause because planets make more since that can of cheese whiz.

So as Cred says you want us to take you seriously prove the super natural. Disproving a natural solution doesn't do anything for your cause it only means that there is a different natural solution

[Credendovidis]

Tell it to God at the Great White throne.

Tell it to WHOM ?
You BELIEVE that "God" exists. But does "God" exists ?
You can not even provide OSE for the existence of "God"!

...well you know us blondes...

Everyone can post a pic on the board. So are you blond? That would explain a lot !

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

[Credendovidis]

So as Cred says you want us to take you seriously prove the super natural. Disproving a natural solution doesn't do anything for your cause it only means that there is a different natural solution

Good point michealb, and that is actually on-topic !

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

I don't know why or care any more why you don't get this. I'm just going to go with there is something wrong with you.

I don't share your faith that energy is matter. I accept the scientific findings regarding the nature of energy and matter. That is why I don't get why you hold to your views. We showed you the scientific information even, but for some reason you reject it in favour of your own ideas.

I'm sorry that someone gave you bad information

Indeed - but I have the right information now!

One guy who despite his degrees doesn't know what he is talking about does not make a controversy.

You tell us that scientists don't understand the nature of energy and matter, and you tell us that biologists don't know their subject matter either.

Wow - and what are your credentials that give you the authority to say that they are all wrong?

The vast majority of biologist feel that the facts point to evolution.

But not that evolution is a fact as you claimed. Of course at one time the majority of scientists believed the earth was flat and I have an old encyclopedia from the very early 20th century that says that rockets can never carry anything larger than a basketball.

The majority is not always right - that is why scientists do not always agree and continue to do research in various areas.

With good reason because all of the evidence points to evolution the only people that feel there is a controversy are people who are trying to push their religious agenda.

ALL the evidence does not point to evolution. The best statement that you could honestly make is that some evidence could be interpreted as pointing to evolution as a possible method (assuming of course that you are referring to macroevolution, and not microevolution which is a fact). But there is a great deal of evidence that does not point to evolution, but rather causes a great deal of difficultly for evolutionists.

Right they assumed it was because of planets not that it was caused by a giant can of cheese whiz. They didn't rule out a giant can of cheese whiz but they still discounted it. Under you logic since they haven't ruled it out they should consider it to be a possibility. However until we find a giant can of cheese whiz orbiting a planet that would be stupid to assume. So until we prove the super natural you can't use it for any cause because planets make more since that can of cheese whiz.

It appears that you are not aware of how scientists make these determinations. Maybe this site will help you understand the basics:

Planet Quest: Science - Finding Planets

Tom

"The latest data differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data are ignored."
(Source: Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy", New Scientist, Vol.92, No.1280 (Nov 19.1981),pp.522-523)

[Credendovidis]

I don't share ....

PLEASE GET BACK ON-TOPIC : "Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?"

:rolleyes:

.

.

[michealb]

I know very well how they find planets. However I am sure that not one of them ruled out the idea that it could be a giant can of cheese whiz with the same properties as a planet orbiting the planet instead of planet. By your logic if it can't be ruled out it has to be considered.

As I have stated before you can not prove the supernatural by ruling out the natural. Even if you could my theory that the big foots with fairy wings did it would have just as much validity as yours.

Meet us half way present some proof of the super natural. An angle wing, the Holy Grail, moses staff that turns to snakes, some talking burning bush, ghosts, demons, spirits, healed amputee, Bigfoot, alien abductions, lizard-men, Loch ness monster, the jersey devil, the devil, fairies, leprechauns, a yeti, Eden, a talking snake, or god. All you have to do it proof one of these. You probably know they all exist so impart some of that on use how you came to know these exist so we can do the same.

By the way love how you skipped over that whole part of your own post contradicting yourself wise move if something proves you wrong just ignore and it will go away.

[Tj3]

PLEASE GET BACK ON-TOPIC : "Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question above was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at around 33 degrees. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.

[Tj3]

I know very well how they find planets. However I am sure that not one of them ruled out the idea that it could be a giant can of cheese whiz with the same properties as a planet orbiting the planet instead of planet. By your logic if it can't be ruled out it has to be considered.

It is you who came up with the silliness about cheese. But I am glad to see that you accept that astronomers at least know their jobs despite your claims that biologists and quantum physicists don't.

As I have stated before you can not prove the supernatural by ruling out the natural.

I never said that. As I said at the start, I am quite prepared to approach this by dealing solely with that which can be proven scientifically. It is you and your fellow atheists who brought the supernatural into it.

By the way love how you skipped over that whole part of your own post contradicting yourself wise move if something proves you wrong just ignore and it will go away.

Huh?? What the heck are you talking about?

Tom

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. ...There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
(Source: Evolutionist Dr.Paul Pierre-Grasse, former President of the French Academie des Sciences and the scientist who held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years, "Evolution of Living Organisms" (1977), p.103)

[Credendovidis]

As you well know

Once more I have reported you for deliberately posting off-topic, despite you having been requested not to do that.

Why are you trying to get this topic closed for running off-topic?

:(

.

.

[Tj3]

Once more I have reported you for deliberately posting off-topic, despite you having been requested not to do that.

Why are you trying to get this topic closed for running off-topic?

It would be odd to see the OP being off-topic, but I hope that you know that you are in violation for posting that.

[Credendovidis]

Deleted (double)

[Credendovidis]

To all :

Please note that the individual queries on evolution were an example of false logic.

How can queries and answers for one line of thought be suggested as OSE for another entire different line of thought?

Can anyone post any reasoning why queries on evolution should be considered to be OSE for the existence of "God"??

:)

.
.

[JoeT777]

One guy who despite his degrees doesn't know what he is talking about does not make a controversy. The vast majority of biologist feel that the facts point to evolution. With good reason because all of the evidence points to evolution the only people that feel there is a controversy are people who are trying to push their religious agenda.

I’ve run into this mode of thinking several times in my profession, an arrogance that underlies a wish for a predetermined outcome. It’s done by lining-up a list of scientist saying “we have a consensus” you must conform to our ideas. To be with “The Group” offers insulation from genuine objections. It reduces the requirement for rigorous proof and procedures in data collection; it shields sloppy logic in the conclusions or an out and out jump to conclusion, and shields against challenges.

Irving Janis - Groupthink:

“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Are you so stuck on scientific consensus that any other line of inquiry becomes a challenge to your faith science? I'm wondering how much FAITH you are willing to put in man?

There hasn’t been a single scientific proof put forward that would explain away the ontological postulates of first cause or movement and life coming from space monkeys was taken as a joke. It was a joke wasn’t it?

JoeT

[Tj3]

Please note that the individual queries on evolution were an example ogf false logic.

Still trying to keep people from examining the facts, Cred?

Those who love truth do not fear the truth.

[Credendovidis]

I’ve run into this mode of thinking .....

Joe : please keep to the actual topic here :

Can queries and answers on evolution (i.e. one line of thought) be considered OSE for the existence of "God" (i.e. another entire different line of thought) ?

:)

.

.

[JoeT777]

Joe : please keep to the actual topic here :

Can queries and answers on evolution (i.e. one line of thought) be considered OSE for the the existence of "God" (i.e. another entire different line of thought) ?

:)

.

.

The question is “loaded,” only you can determine what’s on topic and what’s not. And of course when ontological logic is put forward, it doesn’t meet you standard of objective supported evidence. Buy the way, is there any credible source that provides a definition of “objective supported evidence” or is it just one of those things that just sounds good?

[Tj3]

A study of nature does indeed provide OSE for an intelligent design and creation. Just as when we see a Macintosh Computer, that is OSE for the existence of engineers who designed the computer even though you cannot see them, or when I see a Ford Truck going down the street, that is evidence of an intelligent designer and manufacturer who designed and built the truck, even though I do not see who did it. In each case we see the result, the evidence that provides un-mistakable evidence of intelligent design.

Likewise in nature, we see designs of far greater complexity than we see in cars or home computers, and if we can see evidence of a designer in a car or computer, how much more so in nature where the technology is so far beyond our technology as to not be even within grasp.

For example when we see the design of the trilobite eyes, we see the evidence of design:

TRILOBITE EYES

Trilobyte fossils, according to evolutionists, are amongst the oldest in the fossil record, estimated to be 500 million years old. Yet the trilobyte eyes are amongst the most advanced, if not the most advanced of any animal right up to modern day. Their vision was excellent and the lenses were a double lens with a hard crystal construction to provide enhanced protection for the eye. In addition, the eyes

Trilobites "possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced," and their vision may actually have "been superior to current living animals" (Shawver, Lisa. 1974. Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution. Science News 105:72).

In “Trilobites” (1993. University of Chicago Press), R. Levi-Setti said that the "real surprise" was that the "basic lens designs" were “engineered with such ingenuity". The article went on to say that "This optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery – that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century – borders on sheer science fiction" (p. 54).

Further, since these were so early in time according to evolutionists, how could these evolve an eye so advanced that it rivals or exceeds complexity and advancement of eyes that exist today, with a design that clearly shows signs of engineering according to scientists, with no transition at all seen in the fossil record.

Over and over again, we see that those who believe that life came about naturally with no intelligent designer or creator cannot come up with a feasible answer as to how these things came to be.

[michealb]

I’ve run into this mode of thinking several times in my profession, an arrogance that underlies a wish for a predetermined outcome. It’s done by lining-up a list of scientist saying “we have a consensus” you must conform to our ideas. To be with “The Group” offers insulation from genuine objections. It reduces the requirement for rigorous proof and procedures in data collection; it shields sloppy logic in the conclusions or an out and out jump to conclusion, and shields against challenges.

Irving Janis - Groupthink:

“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”

Are you so stuck on scientific consensus that any other line of inquiry becomes a challenge to your faith science? I'm wondering how much FAITH you are willing to put in man?

There hasn’t been a single scientific proof put forward that would explain away the ontological postulates of first cause or movement and life coming from space monkeys was taken as a joke. It was a joke wasn’t it?

JoeT

Not space monkeys big foots with fairy wings there is a difference. :) It's a joke to highlight the absurdness of claiming god as the first cause until you prove he exists. Otherwise you can just claim something did something without evidence. I suppose you would have thought it would have made more sense if I had said the Titans created the universe as the Romans thought but unless I have proof of the Titans they make as much sense as big foots with fairy wings because neither one exists without proof.

I find it very interesting that someone arguing for religion would use the group think argument. Since this is the very thing that allows religion to exist in our modern world.

The difference in science is though that anything will be heard as long as you have the evidence to back it up. I have said many times I would love to be the guy that proves evolution to be false. Every biologist I can think of would love to be the person to prove evolution false. If you did you would be a house hold name for hundreds of years. So trust me if there was any real evidence that evolution was false there is plenty of incentive for scientists to put it out there. However the only people that say evolution is wrong are people of a religious background. If there really was a controversy on whether evolution was a fact or not you would have tons of scientist releasing other natural solutions even if they were far fetched scientists would still release them just to make sure they were first. As I said though the only people questioning evolution is a handful of very religious people who had their mind made up before they even began studying the subjects.

So to recap you must have proof of something before you can use it to explain something else.

[Tj3]

So to recap you must have proof of something before you can use it to explain something else.

This applies also to the multitude of assumptions that macroevolution is based upon.

[Galveston1]

NEWSFLASH!! OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD COMING SOON TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

I don't know how old various ones of you are, but if you live long enough you will get your ose. When millions world-wide disappear suddenly then you will KNOW that God the Father has sent Jesus to call His children to meet Him in the air.

File this information in your memory bank, as it will be absolutely CRITICAL to your survival at that time.