Do you believe in God?

[truthguild]

Hmmm, are you beat? lol

Anyways, you're asking us to prove God does exist. But you obviously don't understand science. You ought to know that science can't prove anything. It can provide plausible evidence, and it has, but it can't prove a single thing. This is because science is totally, trial and error and a lot of guesswork. *note, I'm not saying that there's anything faulty with the scientific process, it's just that the way it is performed, it is totally incapable of actually proving anything.

yes, i know that - and never ask for proof of god - merely evidence.
science is in the business of explaining, not proving. with that in mind, let's take a look at your arguments...

With that in mind, let me provide a bit of evidence for a creator.

For those of you who don't believe anything without citation, the following points are extracted (not word for word, but close) from the book Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter by Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D.
1) Mutations can only modify what already exists. The tendency is to preserve and not to innovate. There is no evidence that a mutation or series of mutations have ever created a new structure or organ.

demonstrably wrong. case in point - nylonase. nylonase is the product of a gene duplication mutation followed by a frame shift mutation.

2) Theorists are still arguing over the basics of evolution. One of these current arguments is over whether evolution progresses mainly by natural selection of advantageous mutations or by the accumulation of neutral mutations. If after a couple hundred years, specialists still can't agree over the basic mechanism of their theory, perhaps the whole idea is wrong.

theories in every scientific field still argue over the details of the theories. there are still arguments in germ theory - that doesn't imply germs aren't the causes of those diseases, nor does it imply disease is caused by demons.
the arguments are over the specifics - not over whether evolution did and does occur.

3) The source of new genes has not been established. A source for new genes to be formed has yet to be demonstrated with any certainty.

demonstrably wrong. again, nylonase provides a perfect example.

4) The wild types are stronger than mutated types. A very few experimentally observed mutations in the fruit fly, Drosophila, reportedly confer a slight advantage under special conditions in the laboratory. However, the observed mutated flies have proven generally inferior to the wild type, and under ordinary conditions populations tend to revert to the wild type. The DDT-resistant populations of houseflies illustrate this fact. They do not reproduce as effectively as the wild type in the absence of DDT.

which is a prediction of evolutionary theory.

I could go on and on with all these little things that when combine provide a massive problem for evolution as well as massive evidence for just believing in a Creator.

they're only problems to people that don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory. secondly, even if you did manage to disprove evolutionary theory (and win the Nobel Prize in the process), it wouldn't be any evidence for a creator, and esp. not for your specific god.

you also failed to address the rebuttal to your point of the universe being less than 10,000 years old.

[ichwar]

Refresh my mind on this nylonase point could you?

Also, my point about evolutionists arguing over the basics of evolution is just that, they can't even make up their minds about the most basic foundational part of the theory of evolution. In germ theory, I do believe that the basics have been agreed upon.

Since you already know that mutated species are weaker than and will eventually revert back to the wild type, maybe you can explain how the evolutionary theory attempts to work it's way around this?

Lastly, I never saw your refutation to my young earth claim. It must of gotten buried in a bunch of other posts. I'll go back and take a look.

[truthguild]

Refresh my mind on this nylonase point could you?

short version - in Japan a new kind of flavobacteria evolved with a new gene that allowed them to digest nylon. this new gene formed by a gene duplication mutation (ie. a pre-existing gene made an extra copy of itself) followed by the new copy undergoing a frame-shift mutation causing it to have a different start codon and all the base pairs shifted by 1.

Also, my point about evolutionists arguing over the basics of evolution is just that, they can't even make up their minds about the most basic foundational part of the theory of evolution. In germ theory, I do believe that the basics have been agreed upon.

in germ theory they argue the basics just as much as they do in evolutionary theory - the same also applies to light theory, theory of gravity, tide theory, atomic theory, theory of electricity, and pretty much any other theory you care to compare it with.

Since you already know that mutated species are weaker than and will eventually revert back to the wild type, maybe you can explain how the evolutionary theory attempts to work it's way around this?

the wild types are the product of natural selection under current natural conditions. return them to the environment where those are the selective pressures again, those traits would be re-selected for. most traits involve some sort of a trade off. the selective pressures of the environment determine which is the best. for example, look at how eyes are placed on animals - predators tend to have forward-set eyes, where grazers tend to have side-set eyes. if eyes are set to the front you have good depth perception (beneficial for tracking and pinpointing the prey) at the cost of a reduced field of vision. side-set eyes give a much wider field of vision (good for seeing a predaor trying to sneak up on you) at the cost of much worse depth perception.

Lastly, I never saw your refutation to my young earth claim. It must of gotten buried in a bunch of other posts. I'll go back and take a look.

2 pages back, first post.

[merrillmck]

I've used the word "proof" loosely here but I don't think it changes anything. Obviously, proving God exists isn't going to be similar to a math proof. Math proofs are clean because the definitions they're built on are unambiguous and universally accepted. Good luck finding an unambiguous and universally accepted definition of God ...

Most science and the scientific method are evidence based but some findings in science are generally accepted as fact (I'd put Big Bang in the theory department ... whereas the distance between the Earth and Sun, on a given day and within a given tolerance, is closer to fact).

Finally, I'm not sure where evolution plays in this whole debate ...

[ichwar]

short version of how we know that's wrong - Big Universe+Constant Speed of Light=Old Universe (we can see things at 13.7 billion light years away). The only way to get around this problem is to deny gravity.
We know we're right about the size of the solar system, we've sent probes across it already. if we're that wrong about the size of the universe, then the gravitational attractions of all that matter being that much closer than we think it is would literally tear the solar system apart within a few months.

I don't deny that the solar system is as big as we think. I actually think that it's bigger than we thing it is, AND that we're seeing light from much more that 13.7 light years away.

But we've got a simple and much overlooked solution for this: God did it!
And for those of you who force us to accept 'chance did it' from you but won't take 'God did it' from us, we've got another answer.

Scientist Barry Setterfield did extensive investigation into light speed and concluded that the speed of light is decaying at a non-linear rate that if it were to be undone, the speed of light would reach infinity at about 4000 B.C. (about the time that creationists figure the universe was created judging from the genealogies given in the scriptures.)
Citation: It's A Young World After All, by Paul D. Ackerman pp. 72-77

Work calls me, I'll try and get back here Monday.

[truthguild]

I don't deny that the solar system is as big as we think. I actually think that it's bigger than we thing it is, AND that we're seeing light from much more that 13.7 light years away.

i said 13.7 billion light years away...
if all the matter of the universe was within 10,000 light years, it's gravity would have long ago ripped our solar system apart. a young universe requires that you deny gravity.

But we've got a simple and much overlooked solution for this: God did it!

about as valid an answer as "the Great Green Arkleseizure did it"; it's a non-explanation and not supported by evidence.

And for those of you who force us to accept 'chance did it' from you but won't take 'God did it' from us, we've got another answer.

fallacy - strawman argument. i never claimed chance did it. in fact, natural selection is deterministic - the exact opposite of chance.

Scientist Barry Setterfield did extensive investigation into light speed and concluded that the speed of light is decaying at a non-linear rate that if it were to be undone, the speed of light would reach infinity at about 4000 B.C. (about the time that creationists figure the universe was created judging from the genealogies given in the scriptures.)
Citation: It's A Young World After All, by Paul D. Ackerman pp. 72-77

Work calls me, I'll try and get back here Monday.

besides there being no empirical evidence for c-decay - it poses some serious problems...
let's go back to the Law of Conservation...
E(t)=E(r)+E(m) (where E(t) is the constant Energy total, E(r) is Energy raw, and E(m) is energy mass). This equation can be re-written as:
E(t)=E(r)+mc^2
now, if the speed of light (c) was faster in the past then to balance the equation, somethng else must be reduced on an equivalent scale (in this case, approx. by a factor of 2,000,000).
we have 3 options:
1 - if c increases, E(r) can be reduced. however, that doesn't work since energy cannot be destroyed.
2 - if c increases, m can decrease by reducing the amount of mass in the universe. however, this would require eliminating over 99.9% off all matter thus eliminating just about everything we see in the universe.
3 - if c increases, m can decrease by reducing the amount of mass contained in particles - to a scale where a 70kg person would have the mass of about 200 red blood cells.
but here's the problem...
gravity is F=G(m1m2/d^2)
reducing the mass of an object reduces it's gravity. in a universe where the speed of light is 2million times faster, the gravity between any 2 objects would be 16trillion trillion times weaker. that much a reduction in gravity and the solar system would fly apart.
in order to have a young universe, you have to deny gravity.

[merrillmck]

let's go back to the Law of Conservation...
E(t)=E(r)+E(m) (where E(t) is the constant Energy total, E(r) is Energy raw, and E(m) is energy mass). This equation can be re-written as:
E(t)=E(r)+mc^2

Why do you represent E(t) and E(r) that way? That reads "function of raw energy" and "function of total energy". Wouldn't it read better as - T = R + M ?

now, if the speed of light (c) was faster in the past then to balance the equation, somethng else must be reduced on an equivalent scale (in this case, approx. by a factor of 2,000,000).

Where'd you come up with 2,000,000?

[jmcgowan]

I know I'm a bit late in the discussion, and to be honest I skipped over pages 1 through 24 because I really don't have the three years it would likely take to read it (not to mention I'm afraid that the previous pages contain as much math as the previous two posts, in which case I'm plain screwed!), but here's my answer to the original question way back on page 1:

I do believe in God. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that God is something that can be proven scientifically. I don't think science is the right study to even begin to look for God (or god, or gods, etc...). I think history is much more relevant. The question then is 'Does history provide evidence of a divine being of some type?'

For myself, I believe in the Bible, and so I rephrase the question a bit as 'Is the Bible historically and/or spiritually accurate?' Frankly, if the Bible is accurate, and evidence can be provided to support this claim, then God exists because an accurate historical document details his 'exploits' so to speak. One could pose the same question of any historical figure (example, did Julias Ceaser really exist? Would be answered by accurate historical documents and archaeological findings). Consider the following excerpt from FF Bruce's "New Testament Documents"
<<<<<<<begin disturbingly long quote<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<End disturbingly long quote<<<<<<<<<<<<
This can be read in full at http://www.worldinvisible.com/librar...i/ntdocc02.htm

While this isn't exactly definitive proof, it is evidence, which is what has been asked for.

[hydropon]

Yes, I do believe in higher force, we can call it God. But we can't understand it, as a dog can not understand why the planes fly. so are we

[compass]

I agree with what you've said here. I'd personally like to witness such a "proof."

But I do think it is an extraordinary request!

Think about what you're asking for:

1. A supernatural feat or miracle
2. The cooperation of a "special" person (God, prophet, whatever)
3. The feat repeated multiple times
4. And I think it is implied that you'd like to be a witness!

No, I did not mean that that the witness should be myself, after all, I did not witness Michaelson's experiments and I do not have the material (and time) to reproduce them but they make sense, are backed up by theory and are supported by other experiments, so I thus believe his conclusions about the speed of light.

No, I simply meant witnesses that have no stake in seeing what's not really there. I have seen a "miracle healing" session (don't ask how...) and most people there acted as if they really believed they'd witnessed a miracle (note that I do not know if they really believed, they just said so). And yet there was no miracle present, they just wanted to belive it that's all.
I do not call these realible witnesses.

According to the Bible, Jesus did #1,#3 [feeding of thousands with essentially a basket of food; he did this multiple times] and #2 obviously he was performing these things to help convince non-believers. But you weren't a witness.

According to the Quran, Muhammad did #1, #3 [he produced water from his fingers] and #2 obviously this was showing him to be "special." But you weren't a witness here either!

A book written by adherents of a certain religion and considered holy by that religion does not constitute evidence for any but the followers of that religion.

Someone else here raised (in joke I hope) the point of "how do we know Caesar existed? Also from a book..." (or similar).
Well, we have Caesar's book about the Gallic Wars (in fact letters to the Senate) but we have corroborative writings about Caesar from many, many other sources, including enemies of Caesar, roman and non-roman, about his existence and also about most of the actions attributed to him.

Non religious people do not claim that there was no such person as Jesus or Muhammad. It is the actions attributed to them that are in dispute.
So, there were hundreds of manuscripts found of the New Testament, all from the first few centuries AD. So, what is the point here?
In essence, the "hystorical evidence" that the Bible is true is in fact to found in ... the Bible.
Really?!
So, why don't we belive all these people that were abducted by aliens then? They said that they were, and they wouldn't make up stories would they?

Now, find me some books or inscriptions about the "miracles" performed by Jesus (or Muhammad) from sources that have nothing to do with Christianity (or Islam) and that are contemporary with the claimed events and then I'll believe it.

Personally, I find the blind-religious believers troubling and I lean more towards the scientific route. However, I think there are a lot of holes in those of us (including me) who want proof/evidence of God. Imagine if the deists are correct and God created the world but doesn't participate. If that's the case, then #1, #2, and #3 are impossible simply because God chooses not to cooperate with our requests.



Finally, the point of my earlier posts is that regular X10forum posters cannot give proof of God because they aren't "special" #2 ... well ... anyway ...

Well, if God chooses not to cooperate with our requests then what's the point of prayer?

As for proof vs. evidence, I have to clarify that I require evidence and not proof.
But, with the exception of ONE book there is no evidence of God. At all.
And one book is not evidence.