Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:That's not how honest conversation works, Ed. You make an assertion, the least you can do is back your assertion with proof. That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to when I mentioned that atheists change the meaning of atheism, so they wouldn't have to back their belief that God doesn't exist.

All I see here is word games. You know perfectly well that it's not possible to prove a negative. You also know that your religion describes your god in terms that make it impossible to investigate him using scientific inquiry. That takes us to metaphysics, which is just more words, and faith, which is just suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to accept the most extraordinary claim in history if all you have to back it up is words.Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.

And FYI, it doesn't take metaphysics to prove God exists. Pure, simple logic works.

RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim.

Liar.
you rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs. And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.

Audie wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:


Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

Audie wrote:To be a creationist (yec /gap) has stern requirements. One has to be one or all three of
ignorant, mentally disturbed, or intellectually dishonest.

As elsewhere noted, to be a creationist requires ignorance or dishonesty.No, it doesnt, it takes faith.

The parts on bold will do for the ignorance. Do you even know why?

Also, note, I spoke of disproof of a theory, which you have not offered.Disprove God then.

Instead,you went for how a theory must provide every single last detail of everything that happened for the last few hundred million years.but its what you are asking belivers to do.

By that, the gaps in knowledge of WW2 should call its historical reality into sharp question.

There are also a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the WW2 history. Does that not make it far more problematic than evolution, as ToE is without contradictions or inconsistencies?apart from there being no transitional fossils.

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:


Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

Audie wrote:To be a creationist (yec /gap) has stern requirements. One has to be one or all three of
ignorant, mentally disturbed, or intellectually dishonest.

As elsewhere noted, to be a creationist requires ignorance or dishonesty.No, it doesnt, it takes faith.

The parts on bold will do for the ignorance. Do you even know why?

Also, note, I spoke of disproof of a theory, which you have not offered.Disprove God then.

Instead,you went for how a theory must provide every single last detail of everything that happened for the last few hundred million years.but its what you are asking belivers to do.

By that, the gaps in knowledge of WW2 should call its historical reality into sharp question.

There are also a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the WW2 history. Does that not make it far more problematic than evolution, as ToE is without contradictions or inconsistencies?apart from there being no transitional fossils.

Turn all of your Ah, got ya's around audie. Prove to me God doesnt exist, you cant. Any more than I can prove He does to you.
Believing doesnt make me ignorant or dishonest. at least I am open to the idea that I might be wrong, whyare you so sure youre not?

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:That's not how honest conversation works, Ed. You make an assertion, the least you can do is back your assertion with proof. That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to when I mentioned that atheists change the meaning of atheism, so they wouldn't have to back their belief that God doesn't exist.

All I see here is word games. You know perfectly well that it's not possible to prove a negative. You also know that your religion describes your god in terms that make it impossible to investigate him using scientific inquiry. That takes us to metaphysics, which is just more words, and faith, which is just suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to accept the most extraordinary claim in history if all you have to back it up is words.Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.

And FYI, it doesn't take metaphysics to prove God exists. Pure, simple logic works.

RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim.

Liar.
you rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs. And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:That's not how honest conversation works, Ed. You make an assertion, the least you can do is back your assertion with proof. That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to when I mentioned that atheists change the meaning of atheism, so they wouldn't have to back their belief that God doesn't exist.

All I see here is word games. You know perfectly well that it's not possible to prove a negative. You also know that your religion describes your god in terms that make it impossible to investigate him using scientific inquiry. That takes us to metaphysics, which is just more words, and faith, which is just suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to accept the most extraordinary claim in history if all you have to back it up is words.Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.

And FYI, it doesn't take metaphysics to prove God exists. Pure, simple logic works.

RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim.

Liar.
you rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs. And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.

For what rule infraction did BW threaten me?

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:


Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

As elsewhere noted, to be a creationist requires ignorance or dishonesty.No, it doesnt, it takes faith.

The parts on bold will do for the ignorance. Do you even know why?

Also, note, I spoke of disproof of a theory, which you have not offered.Disprove God then.

Instead,you went for how a theory must provide every single last detail of everything that happened for the last few hundred million years.but its what you are asking belivers to do.

By that, the gaps in knowledge of WW2 should call its historical reality into sharp question.

There are also a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the WW2 history. Does that not make it far more problematic than evolution, as ToE is without contradictions or inconsistencies?apart from there being no transitional fossils.

Turn all of your Ah, got ya's around audie. Prove to me God doesnt exist, you cant. Any more than I can prove He does to you.
Believing doesnt make me ignorant or dishonest. at least I am open to the idea that I might be wrong, whyare you so sure youre not?

Disproof of god, and disproof of ToE are two totally different matters.
Why even bring it up? Because you are asking for us to prove ToE wrong.

Nothing about understanding science requires one abandon god, I'd say it is quite the opposite.

It requires that one be educated in science, it requires that one abandon faith in one's own chosen interpretations of the bible, in favour of what is real.Thats assuming the Bible is false and that God is not real.

It dishonours such god as there may be to make false attributions to him.Where have I done that?

I am offering no gotchas, tho it seems to me that you and BW are trying to do that, with this absurd "disprove god' thing. Absurd and irrelevant both.Why is it absurd? You claim He doesnt exist, that belief requires ignorance or dishonesty. Yet you cannot prove it.

The things I bolded earlier are prime examples of how creationism, (as per dictionary) does require ignorance or dishonesty.How?

If you wish to be a creationist, that is fine, its your business. But there is no way on god's green earth that it is an informed position to take. maybe not for you but for me, it is. Remember as well audie, I believe despite what I had to walk away from. If there was a chance I am wrong, dont you think I would grasp at that, to keep those I hold dear to me close by. by all means, disbelieve but dont tell me its not an informed decision. I tested this, looked for any possibility it might not be true. I dont doubt your honesty, you are as sweet a person as could b asked for. and you are a prickly hedgehog, which is why I love you It is obvious though that you are not well informed in matters of science. Why not just accept that for what it is? because I question everythingYou dont know, but you choose a position to take.I am not particularly scientific but what I do know suggests the possibility, at least, of creation.

You just said "apart from there being no transitional fossils". You sure didnt get that from a paleontologist, not from study, not from knowing what a "transitional fossil" would even be if you saw one. Correct?so are there any? if not, wouldnt you expect to find at least, some?

As for why I am so sure I am not wrong?

One thing I am not wrong about is that I have observed lo and many an argument against evolution. None are any better than falsehoods.
None display both honesty and knowledge.

Nobody has anywhere on earth ever come up with disproof of evolution.
So after 150 years of trying, with that track record, one can be pretty sure nobody I am going to meet has the magic bullet to shoot it down.yet

Im sure that ToE is correct because I have spent more time in class, lab and field, more in discussion and thought than any of the naysayers here; I know what I am talking about, they dont. It makes sense, has a vast body of consistent supporting evidence from all fields of the hard sciences. The naysayers have nothing but nonsense to offer as rebuttal.have you looked for God with the same honesty?

As for could be wrong? Of course I could be.

Do any of our creationists say they could be wrong?yes, me.

Story : Because you are asking for us to prove ToE wrong.

Story:.Where have I done that?

Story: so are there any? if not, wouldnt you expect to find at least, some?

PaulSacramento wrote:The burden of proof always falls on the person making the absolute statement, whether it be a positive one ( "X" exists) or a negative one ("X" doesn't exist).

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

RickD wrote:That's not how honest conversation works, Ed. You make an assertion, the least you can do is back your assertion with proof. That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to when I mentioned that atheists change the meaning of atheism, so they wouldn't have to back their belief that God doesn't exist.

All I see here is word games. You know perfectly well that it's not possible to prove a negative. You also know that your religion describes your god in terms that make it impossible to investigate him using scientific inquiry. That takes us to metaphysics, which is just more words, and faith, which is just suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to accept the most extraordinary claim in history if all you have to back it up is words.Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.

And FYI, it doesn't take metaphysics to prove God exists. Pure, simple logic works.

RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim.

Liar.
you rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs. And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.

For what rule infraction did BW threaten me?

Audie,

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you have an issue with a moderator, please take it up in private.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The burden of proof always falls on the person making the absolute statement, whether it be a positive one ( "X" exists) or a negative one ("X" doesn't exist).

My position is that I do not believe there is any god, not that "god does not exist".

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The burden of proof always falls on the person making the absolute statement, whether it be a positive one ( "X" exists) or a negative one ("X" doesn't exist).

My position is that I do not believe there is any god, not that "god does not exist".

That is a most sensible position for a skeptic.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The burden of proof always falls on the person making the absolute statement, whether it be a positive one ( "X" exists) or a negative one ("X" doesn't exist).

My position is that I do not believe there is any god, not that "god does not exist".

That is a most sensible position for a skeptic.

Why is what is sensible for a skeptic any different than for a gullible ( ) in this regard?

Audie wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:


Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

Audie wrote:To be a creationist (yec /gap) has stern requirements. One has to be one or all three of
ignorant, mentally disturbed, or intellectually dishonest.

As elsewhere noted, to be a creationist requires ignorance or dishonesty.

The parts on bold will do for the ignorance. Do you even know why?

Also, note, I spoke of disproof of a theory, which you have not offered.

Instead,you went for how a theory must provide every single last detail of everything that happened for the last few hundred million years.

By that, the gaps in knowledge of WW2 should call its historical reality into sharp question.

There are also a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the WW2 history. Does that not make it far more problematic than evolution, as ToE is without contradictions or inconsistencies?

IceMobster wrote:

Audie wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:


Could you explain it to me where are the corpses of all of those "in-between" animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be a corpse of a giraffe whose neck is not as long as today's giraffes and not short, as the presumable animal the today's giraffe evolved from, right? Where is that evolutionary step? Shouldn't it be evident in corpses, as well? No transitional phase between animals has ever been found.

Considering everything is made from coincidence, why do you trust your reason? Why do you trust your consciousness?

How do you explain coincidence that produces symmetrical, connected and balanced form?

Audie wrote:To be a creationist (yec /gap) has stern requirements. One has to be one or all three of
ignorant, mentally disturbed, or intellectually dishonest.

As elsewhere noted, to be a creationist requires ignorance or dishonesty.

The parts on bold will do for the ignorance. Do you even know why?

Also, note, I spoke of disproof of a theory, which you have not offered.

Instead,you went for how a theory must provide every single last detail of everything that happened for the last few hundred million years.

By that, the gaps in knowledge of WW2 should call its historical reality into sharp question.

There are also a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in the WW2 history. Does that not make it far more problematic than evolution, as ToE is without contradictions or inconsistencies?

There are gaps in Bible, as well. Should we call it redundant/irrelevant, as well?
Instead of insulting, trying answer a question(s) I put up.

"You just said "apart from there being no transitional fossils". You sure didnt get that from a paleontologist, not from study, not from knowing what a "transitional fossil" would even be if you saw one. Correct?"
Fine. You know what you are talking about (as you said yourself). Enlighten me with proof, please.

As for saying my questions are nonsense, mind answering them before calling them out as nonsense? Thanks.
I am sure it will be no problem for you since, well, they are nonsense, right?

"Do any of our creationists say they could be wrong?"
As for myself, I wouldn't even say I'm a creationist. Day-age makes the most sense Biblical-wise, but, we can't know how it truly was, so I refrain from taking a stance on it.