Provide Proof God Does Not Exist & Proof of Evolution Theory (Lord, miracle)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow. You don't say, Vansdad! That good huh? Hmmm.. well uhmmm.... then where on earth does this counter-argument come from then?
"In 1991 tests of British “police psychic” Nella Jones indicated that her ability to “psychometrize” possible murder weapons was nonexistent. Indeed, tests conducted by Los Angeles Police Department researchers, reported in the Journal of Police Science and Administration (7, no. 1 [1979]: 18-25), showed that information generated by psychics was no better than chance would allow."
It's not very compelling, VD. In fact, it's pretty much damning whenever and wherever it's properly tested. Such spiritual nonsense, like belief in spirits themselves, in this modern age, is so easily disproven. that, of course, will not stop you from insisting on belief. It's the basis of your hard-core system of beliefs, obviously.
__________________________________________
But now, since I don't trust you to actually read this information (it does incinerate your claims, after all..) I'll post another paragraph from this very informative article to save you, and other readers, from having to go look-see for themselves as to how fake these claims or psychics always are:
"Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime.
Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.
Common sense suggests that if psychics really had the powers they claim then they would long ago have identified the “Unabomber” or have discovered the remains of missing Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. If they cannot accomplish such missions individually, how much more telling is their collective inability to do so?"
How indeed?
Then watch this damning video: FBI have NEVER solved a casse via any psychic input. In one case, the psychic told the anguished parents that their missing child was dead. Four years later he turned up alive. This amounts to criminal behavior. As the narrator days, this is the equivalent of sadistic crime and child abuse. So go for supporting this disingenous fraud, VD. You go, man. Believe in this obvious crap.
And finally, (but by no means the last of the available articles that put such silliness to bed once and for all), here's yet another article about the police's unsuccessful use of so-called psychics. This is trackable and demonstrable fact, not the desperately wishful "ranterings" of the highly susceptible and gullible, as our hero here appears to want to be..)
For this and other similar "Selective Proofs", we also easily conclude there is no God that fits the description of the BibleGod. Why? Because far too much of what He's supposed to have accomplished is pure unadulterated hearsay and wishfully desperate wanna-be thinking in a world-view that these people have carefully nurtured and tended to since their teens. As a result, they have far too much invested in it to realize and accept that it's all bunk, which then fails so absolutely when it's tested. That's why we can day, with 99.99999% conviction, There is no Such God.
The decision that you are wrong, Vans, based on the fact that you produce no evidence of any kind, and, resort to deception and diversion as your sole debate manner, is completely sound and nothing anyone needs to be guilty about, despite your continued allusions. These people have engaged you honestly, and you've done nothing in return.
You're in the wrong, and you need to mature enough to accept it.
I am going to throw in a couple of reputable scientific journals. I want to see if anyone besides Huffenhardt, Rfleman and myself is familiar with them.
The first is Origins of Life and Evolutions of Biospheres.
The Second is Journal of Melecular Evolution.
The "proof" of evolution, and even of abiogenesis is there. Over and over again. And not just there, but in a plethora of other scientific papers. What it presents, and the discussions therein, will take some learning, some research and maybe some time for a few people on here to understand. Which is why I suggest you look at those scientists who are researching chemistry, geology and astro-physics and learn from them.
And some people do not want to understand, they want to fear it, because evolution and abiogenesis would not give creedence to their religious philosophy. In other words, it does not put money in the offering plates or bums in the pews.
But not wanting to understand something does not negate the fact taht it is still there. And if someone does not want to accept the facts about evolution, and wants to live in a mythological, miraculous world, then that is their choice. Personally, I choose facts over myths.
Which do you prefer ?
I am going to throw in a couple of reputable scientific journals. I want to see if anyone besides Huffenhardt, Rfleman and myself is familiar with them.
The first is Origins of Life and Evolutions of Biospheres.
The Second is Journal of Melecular Evolution.
The "proof" of evolution, and even of abiogenesis is there. Over and over again. And not just there, but in a plethora of other scientific papers. What it presents, and the discussions therein, will take some learning, some research and maybe some time for a few people on here to understand. Which is why I suggest you look at those scientists who are researching chemistry, geology and astro-physics and learn from them.
And some people do not want to understand, they want to fear it, because evolution and abiogenesis would not give creedence to their religious philosophy. In other words, it does not put money in the offering plates or bums in the pews.
But not wanting to understand something does not negate the fact taht it is still there. And if someone does not want to accept the facts about evolution, and wants to live in a mythological, miraculous world, then that is their choice. Personally, I choose facts over myths.
Which do you prefer ?
Every industry has their periodicals. Fisherman, farmers, real estate, all types of medical journals, cars, cooking, physical fitness, investing, guns, blah bal blah. Just because someone doesn't have the time, nor inclination, nor interest in perusing materials WAY outside their scope/field/hobby doesn't mean they are deficient, as you imply. Journal of molecular Evolution indeed. Sounds like a real yawner to me!
It probably is a tough read, but there we are. It often turns out that claims that Irreducible complexity is disproven or abiogenesis is shown theoretically feasible are challenged. We give the explanation and we get 'that's jut your opinion'. So we refer to these books or articles by authorities in the field and of course they are too much of a 'yawn' to be read, so we do just pick a few salient paras. to illustrate the point and can reasonably expect that it be taken as a valid argument.
That is the way we are supposed to conduct argument here, rather than by mockery- which is actually the subject of a Tos para .
It probably is a tough read, but there we are. It often turns out that claims that Irreducible complexity is disproven or abiogenesis is shown theoretically feasible are challenged. We give the explanation and we get 'that's jut your opinion'. So we refer to these books or articles by authorities in the field and of course they are too much of a 'yawn' to be read, so we do just pick a few salient paras. to illustrate the point and can reasonably expect that is not be taken as a valid argument.
That is the way we are supposed to conduct argument here, rather than by mockery- which is actually the subject of a Tos para .
I agree, we need to be referencing solid info in our arguments, not just mocking. yo uare right.
As for the above mentioned journal......
I don't find it to be a Yawn, but consider that on the cruise ship my relaxing read was Ayn Rand or James Joyce. Not to imply anything, but I like to read things which make me think. And I like to learn.
The difference between something like say Journal of Molecular Evolution and National Fisherman is that the former exists to show scientific proof of how biochemicals evolve naturally, for one, and thus lend to a piece to the understanding of human evolution and Abiogenesis.
The latter, to me, would be a real yawn, because I do not find it interesting. But that again is perspective.
In formulating an arrgument, we know that we need to go to reputable sources and discover what research and knowledge they are presenting. Journal of Molecular Biology would be a journal that takes articles from molecular biologists, biochemists and the like and presents them in a scientific manner. I find it to be a fascinating read. And it starts to show that the evolutionary theory and Abiogensis does add up.
As I mentioned , the proof is out there, and it would take some perusing the journals and the scientific world to see it. Some people may be prevented from this by religious constraints from persuing this line of reason. Some may find it uninteresting, which I have trouble understanding because the argument here is the title is PROOF of EVOLUTION THEORY. Well here ya go. Start searching online for scientific journals under Abiogenesis , Biochemistry, and molecular biology. Look at evolutionary articles which show how the building blocks of amino acids, proteins can evolve naturally. Look at how atoms can line up inder the right conditions into molecules, how molecules can form carbon chains, and how an exchange of carbon dioxide for oxygen can evolve into a metabloic organism. This is proof of evolution.
Look deep into space, at the big bang, look at the massive energy and formation of atoms, of the very building blocks of everything that exists. The proof of evolution is therein. One must just be willing to see it.
I agree, we need to be referencing solid info in our arguments, not just mocking. yo uare right.
As for the above mentioned journal......
I don't find it to be a Yawn, but consider that on the cruise ship my relaxing read was Ayn Rand or James Joyce. Not to imply anything, but I like to read things which make me think. And I like to learn.
The difference between something like say Journal of Molecular Evolution and National Fisherman is that the former exists to show scientific proof of how biochemicals evolve naturally, for one, and thus lend to a piece to the understanding of human evolution and Abiogenesis.
The latter, to me, would be a real yawn, because I do not find it interesting. But that again is perspective.
In formulating an arrgument, we know that we need to go to reputable sources and discover what research and knowledge they are presenting. Journal of Molecular Biology would be a journal that takes articles from molecular biologists, biochemists and the like and presents them in a scientific manner. I find it to be a fascinating read. And it starts to show that the evolutionary theory and Abiogensis does add up.
As I mentioned , the proof is out there, and it would take some perusing the journals and the scientific world to see it. Some people may be prevented from this by religious constraints from persuing this line of reason. Some may find it uninteresting, which I have trouble understanding because the argument here is the title is PROOF of EVOLUTION THEORY. Well here ya go. Start searching online for scientific journals under Abiogenesis , Biochemistry, and molecular biology. Look at evolutionary articles which show how the building blocks of amino acids, proteins can evolve naturally. Look at how atoms can line up inder the right conditions into molecules, how molecules can form carbon chains, and how an exchange of carbon dioxide for oxygen can evolve into a metabloic organism. This is proof of evolution.
Look deep into space, at the big bang, look at the massive energy and formation of atoms, of the very building blocks of everything that exists. The proof of evolution is therein. One must just be willing to see it.
Many Christians see no conflict between belief in G-d and evolution. Rather, evolution as confirmation of a superior being "designing" a SYSTEM for the creation of man, consciousness, self awareness, higher intelligence, etc. After all, it seems if we are the most intelligent beings that we know exist. Thus, did we create this intelligence, or did we discover it? Were we predisposed to develop it, or did it come out of nothing? If the latter, if we are truly creating intelligence that did notpreexist, we are in a way god like, making something out of what did not exist before. But then the question becomes, how did the "intelligence" that created the laws of physics, etc come to be? The idea that the complex mathematically based rules from which we sprung have no creator or designer or even instigator seems possible, but not probable. All the fantastic science reveals, surely, but the issue is whether there was a DRIVER behind its natural development.
I don't believe science can answer that now, or ever.
whodathunkit? We seem to be coming to an understanding. Yes, it is quite possible to accept the evidence for the theory of evolution and not see any incompatibility with the idea that God (or a god) was behind it all. It is true that there are logical technicalities that support disbelief -Occam's razor, the materialist default, but the possibility of a god behind evolution is undeniable and I don't deny the possibility.
If evolution of life from blob (however and whoever started it off) through fish, Dinos, mammals, primates and to us is accepted on the basis of the evidence, then we really don't have a quarrel.
What Is Not a possibility is that the account in Genesis is literally true. And THAT is what the evolution debate is all about - not whether the evolution evidence shows definite signs of a designer - it really doesn't - but whether Evolution undermines Bible Literalism.
That, I assure you, chum is what it is all about. Uncompromising, Rigid, Fundamentalist Bible literal inerrancy. It is NOT about disproof of God which evolution -as you see yourself - cannot do and is not intended to.
Let's talk. We may find that we agree on more than you could have imagined.
well, let us revisit the whole argument in an abbreviated form.
What I was told, over and over again, is that evolution makes the account of Genesis in the Bible, not literally true. And since, I am told, the Bible is 100% true, then the accounts of genesis MUST THEREFORE be true and so evolution, which disproves it as being literally true, is therefore evil...the work of the DEVIL!!!..etc I have heard all those
BUT there is more. Since Snakes did not talk in the garden of eden, and did not strat slithering 6000 years ago, having slithered since Cambrian times the temptation, the ultimate sin, probably did not happen as literally true in the Bible. SO There is no original sin, no reason for Jesus to come and be a sacrifice 4000 years later to redeem nman of this original sin, because if you look at the scientific facts, none of this could have happened as described.
THUSLY I am told by numerous Christians "If it is all not true then what good is our religion?"
Well, we can talk here. I gave up that religion long ago because it was not doing myself any good , and I observed it doing more harm than good to famiy and friends.
Moving on. Proof of evolution continues, and proof of creationism, well, it falls apart daily. Proof of the literal truth of the Bible? Well, that has fallen appart too.
So waht is left? A book some people cling to? That fascinates me, because that shows the power of myth and superstition in this day and age.
As for people not being able to comprehend the information in the scientific journals, I don't blame them for that so much as I would blame the educators in our schools today. I would blame religion, too, for discouraging it to some degree, for being fearful that someone might read a paper of molecular evolution or Abiogenisi and say "Hay Hay that makes sense"
I talked about how as a child we were forbidden to read Darwin's book. Although we had a number of experts at our church who told us all about the works of Darwin, including what Darwin said and did and believed etc. imagine my reaction when I found out later that none of these religiousites had actually read Darwin's works.....They were repeating what they had been told. And when I did break the rules and read it for myself, I found out that they were way off and not even dispensing accurate information.
It made me likewise ask, if they arewrong about this, then about what else are they wrong?
When I enrolled in college, Started taking classes in biology and Anthropology, which my religous mom described as "So sinful" I started realizing that most of the Christians I had grown up around really were backwards, and not all that impressive people. I started finding that realistically, atheist and non-theist professors were the truly admirable people in life, for they had something the Christians lacked...questions and answers. Which is partly why I spend more time reading journals to find answers instead of a book of myths. I want accurate information. I know where to find it, and it is not in the Bible.
well, let us revisit the whole argument in an abbreviated form.
What I was told, over and over again, is that evolution makes the account of Genesis in the Bible, not literally true. And since, I am told, the Bible is 100% true, then the accounts of genesis MUST THEREFORE be true and so evolution, which disproves it as being literally true, is therefore evil...the work of the DEVIL!!!..etc I have heard all those
BUT there is more. Since Snakes did not talk in the garden of eden, and did not strat slithering 6000 years ago, having slithered since Cambrian times the temptation, the ultimate sin, probably did not happen as literally true in the Bible. SO There is no original sin, no reason for Jesus to come and be a sacrifice 4000 years later to redeem nman of this original sin, because if you look at the scientific facts, none of this could have happened as described.
THUSLY I am told by numerous Christians "If it is all not true then what good is our religion?"
Well, we can talk here. I gave up that religion long ago because it was not doing myself any good , and I observed it doing more harm than good to famiy and friends.
Moving on. Proof of evolution continues, and proof of creationism, well, it falls apart daily. Proof of the literal truth of the Bible? Well, that has fallen appart too.
So waht is left? A book some people cling to? That fascinates me, because that shows the power of myth and superstition in this day and age.
As for people not being able to comprehend the information in the scientific journals, I don't blame them for that so much as I would blame the educators in our schools today. I would blame religion, too, for discouraging it to some degree, for being fearful that someone might read a paper of molecular evolution or Abiogenisi and say "Hay Hay that makes sense"
I talked about how as a child we were forbidden to read Darwin's book. Although we had a number of experts at our church who told us all about the works of Darwin, including what Darwin said and did and believed etc. imagine my reaction when I found out later that none of these religiousites had actually read Darwin's works.....They were repeating what they had been told. And when I did break the rules and read it for myself, I found out that they were way off and not even dispensing accurate information.
It made me likewise ask, if they arewrong about this, then about what else are they wrong?
When I enrolled in college, Started taking classes in biology and Anthropology, which my religous mom described as "So sinful" I started realizing that most of the Christians I had grown up around really were backwards, and not all that impressive people. I started finding that realistically, atheist and non-theist professors were the truly admirable people in life, for they had something the Christians lacked...questions and answers. Which is partly why I spend more time reading journals to find answers instead of a book of myths. I want accurate information. I know where to find it, and it is not in the Bible.
I guess we grew up in different cultures. I was never around anyone who disparaged the learning of biology and anthropology. Certainly the charge of either being sinful has never crossed my mind, nor have they ever been positioned as such in my world. Just about Everyone I knew attended church, but there was never demonization of these or similar subjects. Most of the families I grew up with were well off, lawyers doctors, executives, etc, so maybe that explains some of the difference. I also knew plenty of professors in college and graduate school who were theists, but by no means believers in the literal bible. You must have indeed grown up in a backward world.
Nothing, not diet, exercise, self examination, will benefit a person not properlyexecuted. Sounds as if you have not been around a proper church with modern thinking and deeper analysis of the bible beyond a literalinterpretatio. Before you go including all of Christianity in the narrow sliver of your experience, I would suggest broadening your scope of knowledge and seeking out ahigher quality of intellect. You may find it not so easy to dismiss when presented more thoughtfully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
