Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:59 am**

Thinker wrote:Mr._Burns, I have a simple question regarding a paragraph from your first post:

Mr._Burns wrote:Now sure how this post will be taken since I have seen many posts deleted and members banned. I hope the members and the admins will take this post with the openness and maturity they say they have.
My question is, since members on this forum, if banned, don't show a status of being banned, how do you know they are? I will not ask about posts being deleted, they are, but the banning issue brought high attention to me. I would assume you would know this if you are a registrant on atheist forums that members from there, register here, and get banned for not obeying forum guidelines, and then report back to the atheist forums and bring "issues" up like, "Christianity is a myth, there is no God, it is a hoax, where is the love from Christians?". So I see in that you would have communication with them (atheists), so in turn you are testing us for an experiment to see how long we hold up to whatever you post, which from right off the bat was you stating you were going to be giving the facts.

I assume your primary reason for being here may be for the evolution debates and then some other topics within the God and Science portion of the forums in whole, however, evolution is NOT a fact, and it has no laws such as thereal stating "evolution is right up there with gravity", and gravity does have laws and it only took a short amount of time for it to have laws, evolution still doesn't, yet I keep hearing, "one of these days, scientists will figure it all out, it will have laws". I don't buy that, and sorry for assuming, but I don't believe your statement about not being an atheist. If I am wrong, I apologize, but from the get go, it already looked like trouble. It's better to be open about your true beliefs now than conceal them and lie about it.

The reason atheists get banned from here is because they don't comply with forum guidelines, which a requirement. Failure to comply and going full swing into battle mode GUARANTEES an almost instant ban. I do know though that atheists that report back to their forum(s) from being banned here will lie about why they were banned so we look bad. This has happened far too many times to be unnoticeable. Out of rare occasion, some believers will be banned because they too, do not comply with forum guidelines and they are militant about such things as the prior banned atheists here.

I have seen some of the posts people have made that led them to being banned. Not many but enough. They were in the Science & God forum, and personally I don't think the banning of the individuals I saw from the messages they posted was warranted. Challenging the belief of creationism is only expected since evolution is continuously challenged. If they cussed and made insulting comments than I can understand, but the posts I read did not. All they did was challenge creationism in an adult manner.

No one ever said eolution was a fact, but neither is creationism. I'm a person of science, a person of science who went to a parochial school and had religion class every day of school for 12 years, and who also took upper level r.s. courses as an undergrad. I have read both sides time and time again, and I made my choice with an open mind. Still think I'm an athiest?
Evolution isn't concrete because we keep learning news things every day. Some parts of it change because of new evidence supported by the scientific community. We may never have it set down cold how everything works, but we have a pretty good idea. I always hear that evolution has holes in it etc etc... Do you think creationism is sound?
Think what we have learned from science in the past 50 years. Imagine what we will learn in the next 10, 20 etc... The data to back up evolution is only going to get better and better.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:04 am**

Mr._Burns wrote:
August wrote:
Yes its all about the truth, which is given by providing proof.
Are you saying that showing physical proof is the only way to know the truth?
Not the actual physical object. Just a reference from a credable source that you got your info from.

Ok, so just to be really clear, the only way you can know the truth is to get it from a credible source, or physically prove it yourself?

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:17 am**

Mr._Burns wrote: I have seen some of the posts people have made that led them to being banned. Not many but enough. They were in the Science & God forum, and personally I don't think the banning of the individuals I saw from the messages they posted was warranted. Challenging the belief of creationism is only expected since evolution is continuously challenged. If they cussed and made insulting comments than I can understand, but the posts I read did not. All they did was challenge creationism in an adult manner.

No one ever said eolution was a fact, but neither is creationism. I'm a person of science, a person of science who went to a parochial school and had religion class every day of school for 12 years, and who also took upper level r.s. courses as an undergrad. I have read both sides time and time again, and I made my choice with an open mind. Still think I'm an athiest?
Evolution isn't concrete because we keep learning news things every day. Some parts of it change because of new evidence supported by the scientific community. We may never have it set down cold how everything works, but we have a pretty good idea. I always hear that evolution has holes in it etc etc... Do you think creationism is sound?
Think what we have learned from science in the past 50 years. Imagine what we will learn in the next 10, 20 etc... The data to back up evolution is only going to get better and better.

Mr Burns I am not a Scientist but have been around long enough to hear the Banter of many people that put their Belief that Evolution is Fact. I have heard just like Gravity that Evolution is a Fact. Evolution Happened and we are just learning how it happened. I would agree that Evolution Happened but I don't agree how we Assume that Species evolved from other Species. Most on this forum would agree that Evolution has happened but do not agree on Darwinian Evolution or even Goulds Hypothesis of Evolution. Can one prove that Dinos and Birds are common Descent Ancestors? No we can say that this Dino had Feathers and then Gradual went into a Bird. That is putting an Assumption that cannot be tested. That is why the people on this Forum are so against that Thought. That is also why we have Forum Rules in which you can read if you click on the links at the top of the page.

Anyways Thanks

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:19 am**

Mr_Burns as well

What Makes a Source Credible?

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:24 am**

Thinker wrote:Mr._Burns, I have a simple question regarding a paragraph from your first post:

Mr._Burns wrote:Now sure how this post will be taken since I have seen many posts deleted and members banned. I hope the members and the admins will take this post with the openness and maturity they say they have.
My question is, since members on this forum, if banned, don't show a status of being banned, how do you know they are? I will not ask about posts being deleted, they are, but the banning issue brought high attention to me. I would assume you would know this if you are a registrant on atheist forums that members from there, register here, and get banned for not obeying forum guidelines, and then report back to the atheist forums and bring "issues" up like, "Christianity is a myth, there is no God, it is a hoax, where is the love from Christians?". So I see in that you would have communication with them (atheists), so in turn you are testing us for an experiment to see how long we hold up to whatever you post, which from right off the bat was you stating you were going to be giving the facts.

I assume your primary reason for being here may be for the evolution debates and then some other topics within the God and Science portion of the forums in whole, however, evolution is NOT a fact, and it has no laws such as thereal stating "evolution is right up there with gravity", and gravity does have laws and it only took a short amount of time for it to have laws, evolution still doesn't, yet I keep hearing, "one of these days, scientists will figure it all out, it will have laws". I don't buy that, and sorry for assuming, but I don't believe your statement about not being an atheist. If I am wrong, I apologize, but from the get go, it already looked like trouble. It's better to be open about your true beliefs now than conceal them and lie about it.

The reason atheists get banned from here is because they don't comply with forum guidelines, which a requirement. Failure to comply and going full swing into battle mode GUARANTEES an almost instant ban. I do know though that atheists that report back to their forum(s) from being banned here will lie about why they were banned so we look bad. This has happened far too many times to be unnoticeable. Out of rare occasion, some believers will be banned because they too, do not comply with forum guidelines and they are militant about such things as the prior banned atheists here.

Mr._Burns wrote:I have seen some of the posts people have made that led them to being banned. Not many but enough. They were in the Science & God forum, and personally I don't think the banning of the individuals I saw from the messages they posted was warranted. Challenging the belief of creationism is only expected since evolution is continuously challenged. If they cussed and made insulting comments than I can understand, but the posts I read did not. All they did was challenge creationism in an adult manner.

Unfortunately, you are only half right on this. People join and bash us Christians because we are "wrong", they get banned after excessively bashing us. They also DO NOT read forum guidelines. It's not tolerated. Also, there is communication via PM which isn't public. And you still didn't answer my question - since members on this forum, if banned, don't show a status of being banned, how do you know they are?

Mr._Burns wrote:No one ever said eolution was a fact, but neither is creationism. I'm a person of science, a person of science who went to a parochial school and had religion class every day of school for 12 years, and who also took upper level r.s. courses as an undergrad. I have read both sides time and time again, and I made my choice with an open mind.

Fair enough on your side.

Mr._Burns wrote:Still think I'm an athiest?

We'll see... You haven't posted what you believe in. Is science your idol? Define atheism in your own words. Are you an agnostic (weak form of atheism)? Pantheist (nature is god)?

Mr._Burns wrote:Evolution isn't concrete because we keep learning news things every day. Some parts of it change because of new evidence supported by the scientific community. We may never have it set down cold how everything works, but we have a pretty good idea. I always hear that evolution has holes in it etc etc... Do you think creationism is sound?
Think what we have learned from science in the past 50 years. Imagine what we will learn in the next 10, 20 etc... The data to back up evolution is only going to get better and better.

Better and better in what sense? So far, all I see on my side of things is the same stuff being presented with more evidence of species of the past but not going any further.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:34 am**

one question for you cougar is this...science is a field that you must obvserve what you you are testing for it to be science, but have any scientists ever observed macroevolution...not adaptation, but macroevolution, i dont think so. if im wrong please tell me so.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:39 pm**

Mr. Burns:

...but if you make a claim that I clearly know is wrong should you not have to back it up since I know your wrong?

:?Nobody has to do anything they don't want to do (except die and answer to God). I'm sure you've heard that before? Besides, you've been wrong on alot of things (mainly on your interpretation of what I've said) and you continue to avoid the issue.

How can you expect someone to believe you with no reputable sources?

There have been many reputable sources on this site. Whether you accept them or not is another matter.

You think I need a review for listening. Which I totally disagree with, nothing wrong with how I read and understand people's posts. Do you think you need a review in biology since you claimed clones don't exist when they obviously do?

Hmm, I can understand you disagreeing with me. Most people like to think they are right most of the time. However, having a problem with your listening skills does not mean you are defective...just something you need to work on. However, I think there is another problem here. I am suspecting that you might be having reading/comprehension problems. That would explain alot of things, mostly why you are so frustrated at people's responses (you don't understand them). Mr. Burns, I never claimed clones don't exist.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:54 pm**

ryo dokomi wrote:one question for you cougar is this...science is a field that you must obvserve what you you are testing for it to be science, but have any scientists ever observed macroevolution...not adaptation, but macroevolution, i dont think so. if im wrong please tell me so.

By definition one cannot observe macroevolution. Just as one cannot observe erosions of mountains, or the creation of mountains. Nor can one observe magnetic fields, or the formation of new languages.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:16 pm**

Nor can one observe magnetic fields,

We can measure them...

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:13 pm**

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
Nor can one observe magnetic fields,
We can measure them...

Precisely, inductive reasoning lead to the discovery of magnetic fields.

We can measure the force of gravity on the planet Earth, but how can we be sure that distant stellar objects obey the same rules determining gravitational force? Empirical evidence allows us to reach a conclusion that certain processes are constant, however we must be open to new possibilities should new observations suggest them.

Inductive reasoning lead one to the conclusion of gravity.
Deductive reasoning lead one to conclude that black holes may form and follow the same rules.

Inductive reasoning leads one to conclude that organisms change over time.
Deductive reasoning allows one to reach the conclusion than many changes over time result in a large change.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:26 pm**

Inductive reasoning leads one to the conclusion that this universe and life within it is too complicated to have been created by chance.
Deductive reasoning leads one to conclude that there is a God.

Inductive reasoning leads one to realize that one species cannot change into another species.
Deductive reasoning leads one to realize that evolution is not science...nonsense.

Posted: **Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:35 pm**

Inductive reasoning leads one to conclude that organisms change over time.
Deductive reasoning allows one to reach the conclusion than many changes over time result in a large change.

Uh........no. For example, say you go to the gym and notice an extremely scrawny guy...and after several weeks, you notice he's becoming more and more muscular....and he eventually starts making this guy look weak:

Does this mean his muscles can continue to get dizzingly bigger?

But an even more approppriate analogy would be if you watched this original Pee Wee only running on the treadmill.....and you notice he gets stronger leg muscles...do you think he would ever look like

No, because he's changing in the wrong way...He's not working the right muscles...

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:04 am**

But, while we're on the subject...doesn't this just scare the hell out of you? You know that if they have husbands they're scared to death.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:25 am**

bizzt wrote:Mr_Burns as well

What Makes a Source Credible?

Preferably well known sources that are peer reviewed, credable organizations (Ex. BATCON International) etc...

Any fool can go make a web site. Therefore if a site is going to be used as a source it should be from a well known respected source. Not some geocities website.

Posted: **Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:40 am**

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But, while we're on the subject...doesn't this just scare the hell out of you? You know that if they have husbands they're scared to death.

I think they look fantastic. Hey KMart, you don't have anything against bodybuilders, do you?

Evidence for God from Science

Logical and Open-minded Discussion