Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

[muscleman]

It seems what has been found is proof of the effectivity of evolution rather than proof of god. Sure, you could probably define the positions of the atoms in a perfect grain of salt with about ten bits. But take the Oklo reactor, totaly independant of natural systems, and very complex. Took some of the brightest minds to replicate it.

Of couse you could take this as evidence of god too. Of course, anything in the universe could be taken as irrefutable proof of god's existance, and it would be complete hooey.

LOL.. ....No comment......

 

[muscleman]

sortingitallout, I completely agree. I dont make quotes in the bible and present them as if they are true, I only do that when the topic and science (and/or history) relates to it, thus proving it to be true.. And I completely agree with what yur saying......But then when I said "NEVER" for u to disagree with that is a matter of belief, opposition of my belief, unless of course u can prove that it "WILL" in the future and not "NEVER", then I would admit being wrong, and in the other hand that can b applied to me as well.

and TheFool, you are the kook......

Kickboxerken, many scientists acknowledges supernatural (unexplainable occurences). Many scientists are believers of God, many doctors, bio-chemists. Do u call that scientific community if they gather together? Well then, when are u goping to be baptized?

and one more thing, I wish the best for Randi and I have no bad thoughts concerning him. Im just worried for people like him (at ripe old age) to continue his life this way when his time is very short, AND HE GOT NOTHING TO LOOSE TO GIVE LIFE A SHOT......NOTHING, maybe his pride though.......

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, Muscle, you just made my ignore list. Congratulations!

Hans

 

[muscleman]

Re: Re: Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

Yes, there is quite a chance. The primordial cells, or protocells were MUCH simpler than even the simplest cells we see to-day. They were really just a compound of primitive proteins. All these primitive proteins have been created in the laboratory, under conditions that probably existed in the early Earth. Hans

The first life form is cell, it multiplies & reproduce, contains nucleus (a program; dna), etc.

Again the topic is "life forms in which are programmed", the topic is not about proteins or amino acids which DOESNT reproduce...

Again if u red the topic concerning "CHANCE".. The claim of chance need a proof of its possibility before claiming it..

If I claim that there is a chance I can win lottery, I better see evidence of it (such as my mother winning it) so that I can acknowledge it and believe OF ITS CLAM OF POSSIBILITY..

A claim that cell appeared by chance CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE..

If claiming that u can win lottery by chance, and if there is no evidence supporting the claim. I FIND NO REASON WHY I SHOULD BUY A LOTTERY...PERIOD........SO WHY AGAIN DO YOU BELIEVE LIFE FORM EXIST BY CHANCE? AND IN FACT, WHY DO MANY OF THESE PEOPLE CLAIM TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVIDENCE WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LIFE AS CHANCE? ARE THEY INCREDIBLY STUPID?

Nobody ever claimed that cells like the ones we know to-day just poped into existence. Bear in mind that those early biological entities had no competition.

No competition or not, it contains DNA, PROGRAMMED, and reproduce..AGAIN claiming that it exist by chance need a proof of its possibility, otherwise might as well claim that woods and rocks were carried by series of tornado and lightning in 1,000 years and then formed the Pyramids of Egypt..


A CLAIM OF CHANCE NEED A PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY....PERIOD......

There is still things to be know about cells, but we have discovered most by now. No, we have not yet created one. Actually I dont know how hard we are trying, after all, it would be of limited use.

Fair enough.......

We cannot explain EXACTLY how it happened, but it is far from impossible.

Far from impossible? Your proposing that its close to possible, AND YET CANNOT DEMONSTRATE ITS POSSIBILITY..

Therefore thats yur belief, your opinion. Others can say its far from being possible, a comment nothing more valid than yours...

Uh, this is simle ignorance. Single-celled organisms multiply by dividing. A single cell can multiply. This is easily observable and common biological knowledge.

No crap. But then again, that took place because of the DNA, programmed (nucleus) within the life forms. THE BRAIN OF THE CELL......

IS IT CHANCE? again thats been taken cared of already, and if u wish I can bring this up again...

" Well, it was more or less alone. An entire Earth, and no competition."

No competition or not, it contains DNA....IS IT BY CHANCE??? And besides how would u know they didnt pop into existence all at once? OR DO U PROPOSE THEIR EXISTENCE WERE PROCCESSED IN MILLIONS OF YEARS?

Dead wrong! Thide sustances were abundant on the early Earth, they are abundant in the Universe, and they are still abundant here to-day, but most are now tied up in more complex compounds.

I agree, they exist. But then again how did they came to life and reproduce?? LOL, by chance???

You are now repeating yourself. It has not been scientifically PROVED how life started. it has, however, been shown how it probably stared.

Fair enough. SO DONT USE THE WORD "SCIENCE SAYS THIS OR THAT" IF IT WAS JUST ATHEISTS "PURE BELIEF".......Using science as a refference for atheists pure belief is just misleading.......

You are now raving. Strong language wont prove your point.

I agree, but I cant help it. Dummies just tick me off......

You are mistaking cause and effect. The present universe offers an exhaustive range of conditions. The Earth is not ideal for our life forms in order to accomodate us, its the other way around: We are here because this is the place where conditions are favorable.

Fair enough. But that doesnt contradict the statement, the two are both valid points. You can look at it that way, or the other way..

You are talking through your hat. Evolution is not sheer theoty, it is supported by a heavy amount of observation. Noe only that, but observations that seem to contradict evolution as the origin of humand are practically non-existent.

Once again u didnt get what Im saying.. Did u even read it? Here ill post it again...

"Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There’s very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex, etc."

"Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms w/out intelligence design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then? "

Evolution is a good accepted theory, a great clue to God. But it can also be a sheer theory, it just depends how u look at it. Again there is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

How about the intelligence in some animals? Nobody ever claimed it happened by chance.

LOL, c'mon dont play like that, apply the analogy of human mind here to animals as well aight?

This doesn't follow at all. Einstein was a great physicist; this doesnt make him an authority on religion.

Exactly, I can b smart in science and philosophy, but be dumb in archeology and others..

You have that explanation. You might be right, but there is no proof, period.

There is proof, maybe the proof is not valid to you, but it is to us. God is proven to many, maybe not to all, as some are convinced that Jesus never existed, or if he did, he was a black man.

Or u can convince yurself King Henry is a myth, but the point here is God and King Henry is proven to exist, maybe not to all, but to many indeed....

Seems you have no idea what "scientific proof" means

Oh I dont??

WELL THAN HANS, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THINGS ARE TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, AND IF THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, ARE THEY MYTHS??? ...EDUCATE ME.......

 

[Yahzi]

Musclesinthemouthonly

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence.

Shades of St. Augustine and Francis Sheaffer. Theology is like picking through a smoothie to try and figure out which fruits went into the blender.

There are several glaring logical flaws in this paragraph alone that completely destroy your so-called "proof" of God.

1. I have no idea where you came up with that "principle of causality," which seems to utterly ignore the existance of catalysts (which seems bizzare given that there is one in your car's engine). According to your principal, I would not expect to get more heat out of throwing a burning match into a can of gasoline than I would have gotten out of the match itself.

However, the laws of thermodynamics do allow for an increase in local complexity at the expense of entropy in another place: thus, the sun serves as both our energy source and our entropy sink.

2. Even if we concede that an intelligence was necessary to create the universe, you have failed to show that intelligence is in any way related to the burning bush a few hopped-up goat herders made up stories about. Or even that said intelligence still exists. Simply demonstrating that the Universe required a cause does not mean that you have a personal relationship with that cause. This is a basic principle of logic: if you find a house in the desert, and manage to conclude that the house was built by a man, you cannot automatically assume that the man who built it is still alive.


There you go: I have, using only the common rules of reason and evidence, demonstrated your position to be not only false, but simple-minded. However, I have no desire for your million dollars, since I am already wealthy beyond your means: instead, I request that you take your million dollars and buy a server, and make your own message board, and go there, and never return to here to bother us sensible folk again. In return, we promise never to bother you. Deal?

I would put this idiot troll on /ignore, but my ignore list is full. Are you listening, Hal Bidlack? We need more /ignore capacity!

 

[Loki]

muscleman,

Since you seem able to perfectly merge the worlds of science and theology, perhaps you can resolve the issue of the creation of the soul?

Are you aware of this comment from Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory :

"The theological doctrine of God directly creating the human soul has to be rethought."

Could you perhaps explain precisely when, and by what process, the soul is created, and at what point the soul and the fetus/human merge? Conception? Birth? First Trimester? Thanks!

 

[J3K]

This is pretty pathetic. As knowledge of how things work have evolved. Religion has changed where it was WRONG. And guess what muscleman, in the future, when we have answers to the things you say "prove" of god, the people that follow what you believe are simply going to be ignorant. It's fine that you believe what you do. But for you to "prove" god the way you are, it's not proof. All you have to do is give us proof that SHOWS that god exists. And most everybody will believe you. But saying "this couldnt have came along because the chances are so small" doesnt prove god.

 

[c4ts]

Re: Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

Time for some unrestrained (and unmedicated) commentary on Muscleman's proof here. Prepare to feel the power of... confusion!

This is a thread to end atheism and claims that God dont exist once and for all. I DARE anyone here refute my arguments, so far NONE have found any flaws of my argument...


Below are questions and answers that I was confronted over the years debating with many atheists.

I also have a 1 million dollar challenge at the end, this is no joke, Im serious.......


Here Ill post the proof of God's existence..........

Ultimate Reality…
“God, the giver of life??”


The first life form to evolve from earth is "Cell", the building blocks of life.

While I'm really not getting anywhere with this first comment, I thought evolution was a process of refinement or differentiation, not generation itself, which would require the first cell to evolve from a previous cell. However, there is so much speculation regarding the formation of the first cell, it's just semantics until the actual argument is put forth. I'll list the points as they are made. After all, the first cell may have evolved from some sort of proto-cell that we wouldn't call "life."

-Cells are the borders of our definition of "life"
-We assume they came before any other form of life
-We assume that all things displaying any number of the characteristics of life are considered life as long as they are made of any number of cells (greater than 0)

It would take about 40,000 of your red blood cells to fill this letter O.

-Cells are tiny

A cell is alive-as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind). And in time, it dies.

- Cells are the borders of our definition of life because they demonstrate the most elementary ("borderline") characteristics of life

An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long.

- Microscopes make ants look big. (Are the numbers really necessary?)

But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.

- Not all things can be seen under high powered microscopes.

Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happens by chance w/out an intelligent cause?

- Discussing the possibility of the negative of intelligent cause...

Maybe there's a chance that computers could b formed by a series of hurricane/lightning/earthquake/ by Chance.

- Unreasonable speculation concerning chance through capitalization errors

Perhaps the lightning struck some rocks in place which caused it 2 melt & created wirings then the wind placed it in location where in Trillions of yrs earthquakes shook it & the design may possible turn into a laptop computer!

- More speculation

But this won’t happen in a single step, but through random chance, the processor was made first, then the speakers, the keyboard, monitor, & so forth all by chance.

- More speculation

No one dares question the laws of physics (LOL). Is this possible? NO!

The laws of physics are "TLOP," not "LOL."
- The laws of physics are not unquestionable
- What that has to do with the speculation regarding spontaneously generated computers eludes me, since it is physically possible for natural disasters to assemble computers, which is the method preferred by Gateway (j/k but the possibility remains, however improbable it may be)...

This analogy is IMPOSSIBLE, there’s no "chance" natural resources contain the necessary tools to create a detailed and complex laptop computer (soldering iron, laser beams, mechanical precision, proper timing &position, etc.) this requires intelligent cause.

- The analogy is impossible because it is incomplete. So far it is "artifice is to natural causes (chance) as ________ is to artificial causes (intelligent design)"
- The reductio, therefore, is incomplete, since "_______ is to artificial causes as artifice is to natural causes, but artifice is to artificial causes, therefore it is absurd," because "nature" would complete the analogy but not the reductio.
"Nature is to artificial causes (intelligent design) as artifice is to natural causes (chance)" actually makes sense, since chance and nature are one set, artifice and intelligent design are the other set (A:B as B:A). Instead a reductio is applied to where the analogy should be completed, as though the analogy was meant to be "artifice is to natural causes as artifice is to artificial causes." But if it were completed that way, then there would be no reason to put forward such an analogy in the first place since it doesn't prove anything.

To summarize Muscleman's reasoning:
- computers are not the result of chance
- chance (nature) does not provide tools for making computers (artifice)
- the basis of these claims is the absurd speculation to the contrary provided
- the speculation provided is absurd because artifice requires intelligent design
- the analogy must be completed in an absurd way because the existing connection "artifice : natural cause" is absurd
- therefore the analogy is absurd ("IMPOSSIBLE!" according to Muscleman) when completed in an absurd way
Look, I've found an even bigger, more obvious flaw! (see italics)

Here is what I think Muscleman is trying to prove:
- Nature = artifice (chance = intelligent design)
- But since nature does not = artifice, nature = artifice of God
But the purpose of the paper is to prove the existence of God, so for now it is "artifice = artifice of man, nature = artifice of something other than man"
But the only thing Muscleman has really demonstrated is that artifice does not = nature, and that seems to be what he is trying to disprove in the first place.

The rift between nature and artifice is not closed by the denial of this analogy, nor by the completion of it. Things not invented by man still fall under the catergory of "may or may not be the result of whatever." So far nothing has been put forward to support intelligent cause in anything but artifice, and I have supplied that. There was a bit about using objects of artifice such as microscopes to observe nature, and that the microscopes were not wholly sufficient tools of observation. Intelligent design is brought up in the refutation of vapid speculation.

Though impossible, that analogy can be mentally visualized, unlike the claim that series of earthquakes, hurricane, sunlight, and lightning can gather atoms and molecules together, and then form it into mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, nucleus, and thousands of the cell’s parts all at once then bring it to life.

- People can mentally visualize a tornado assembling a computer.
- People can mentally visualize a bunch of stuff coming together to make a living cell

Lots of things are imaginable. That doesn't make them true. That doesn't make them false. People can imagine the letters of the alphabet, too. Imagination is not always absurd.

For many years of observation & study, biochemists can only limitedly identify & label what’s contained in a cell, but never successful in creating one. Considering all the technologies modern science has to offer (electron microscope, etc.) they can even split an atom into half! Yet even then NOT ONE scientist are able to successfully create a single cell, NONE! If this was the case, why then do atheist claim that series of earthquake, wind, & lightning created life forms by accident "chance" when scientist with far better technology than wind & sunlight can't?

Basically, this is saying:
- Because scientists have never created life under laboratory conditions, why do atheists claim a series of natural disasters created life?
One problem is the Muscleman assumes atheists make claims about life that follow his own absurd claims along a similar line. There are other problems, such as the fact that he assumes atheists actually make that claim, or that he forgets that there are other scientific theories regarding the formation of life which may also be the claims of atheists (etc)...

To use "natural physics" as an explanation for the atom to transform into a cell is not only unscientific, but also impossible!

Since natural physics doesn't make the claim that atoms transform into cells, it would be impossible.

The cell is so tiny that as observed & studied, earthquake & lightning is incapable of creating it. Many biochemists testified, "The cell is as complex as the city of San Francisco ". It's impossible to form a tiny part of the cell such as the complex nucleus, or mitochondria, or any of cell’s parts alone out of gathering atoms, how much more impossible it is to create the whole body of cell all at once! For the whole entire body go hand in hand. It is like putting a human body parts together & bring it to life: putting a cell together is even far more impossible because of its tiny size. The impossible of the impossible. I don’t care how many millions of years lightning, earthquake and wind has. Fact is natural resources cannot gather the atoms/inert compounds, molecules together & shape it to become a cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, mitochondria, etc. & thousands of other parts to form a cell, the wind cant do it, earthquake cant, neither lightning (too strong) for a cell is extremely defenseless delicate life form. I don’t care how many millions of years quantum physics, hurricane, or lightning have, FACT is no life form & creatures in this known universe can exist & function with one eye & no brain behind it, or one leg without muscles to move it. Fact is it’s all or nothing!
[/b][/quote]
Is it just me, or did he just confuse the testimony of scientists with documented scientific evidence?

Don’t try to compare organisms to automobiles, car parts can wait before creating the rest of the parts, did u actually think there’s a brain lying around waiting for the rest of the parts to develop?

Muscleman has already proved that his absurd comparisons are indeed absurd.

Your strange you know that, u watch too much cartoon network!

Wasn't this supposed to somehow prove God? I haven't seen anything along that line for a while and already the unfounded accustions begin...

I don’t care how tiny or huge life form is (ostrich egg, cell, insects, etc) or how much time quantum physics, quantum mechanics, lightning, & wind have, the fact is the whole parts of the living organism must appear all at once or it will never survive! Impossible, no "chance" at all. This is your "belief/theory", the brain luckily appeared (nucleus), then the eyes luckily appeared, then the nose luckily appeared, etc. thousands of parts appeared all at once by luck (magic)! Super impossible! Any life form survive & grew in size because of their digestive system, liver, throat, intestines, acid, rectum, brain, muscles, etc. And to you, the complex, tiny & delicate, mitochondria, cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, ribosome, etc. thousands parts of cell's body working together all appeared AT ONCE BY ACCIDENT thanks to earthquake, wind & fire. Super extra miraculously incredibly impossible!!

It's funny because he's researched microbiology enough to know the names of several organelles, but only one theory regarding the formation of the first cell, which includes what the first cell probably... no, DEFINITELY (in Muscleman caps), contained.

Ill make it easier for atheist, lets make a magic step over the impossible of the impossible, let’s just pretend that scientists were able to successfully build a cell together!

You offer an "if so... then" condition, but introduced by your demand that logic be abandoned (which really makes it harder for everybody, including atheists). Do you live in this imaginary world of contradiction? It seems like you are so familiar with the terrain...

Even then Ill still believe in God for the fact is, intelligence is the cause of the detailed & complex effect (scientist effort) not series of tornado, earthquake, & lightning. If the super impossibility of creating a cell were made possible, it still won’t survive for it requires one or more of its own kind! (Observed & studied) Lets make another super ultimate impossibility possible, let’s just say it survived, how then did u expect it to multiply from a single cell considering the lifespan of it is very short? If the dinosaurs with ultimate defense mechanism became instinct, how did u expect a defenseless delicate cell survive & replicate? By accident, coincidence, "chance", magic?

You finally mentioned the word "God!" However you didn't include any proof with that mention.

Evolution take is there was an earth w/a pond, hydrogen, methane & ammonia were in the pond & when lightning struck amino acids were formed, this has been demonstrated in the lab. Not all aminos were formed, however. Amino can form protein, & protein formed the first single cell. We have grave problems here because no one explains where the lightning, hydrogen, methane & ammonia came from & how to get around the missing aminos which are required for the over 200,000 proteins required for the single cell. No one can explain where ammonia, methane, hydrogen come from, but for the sake of sorry atheist, lets move on; Lets just say ammonia, methane, hydrogen popped out of nowhere magically & it formed amino acids/proteins thanks to lightning, the first single cell is composed of proteins, so what? So what if you can find a spare leg, heart, lungs, or arms out there? Does it mean that lightning, wind, & earthquake can gather the body parts together & create a living being? Do you think the wind will carry the arms, then the earthquake will shake the heart, &then the lightning will glue them together, &later on the spare parts became a living breathing person!? That’s absurd. So what if lightning can create amino acids out of the mysterious ammonia, methane, hydrogen, so what? Does it mean that Mr. earthquake, lightning, wind, & sunlight can gather the amino acids and shape it into a tiny and delicate nucleus, cell membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondria, & thousands of other parts of the cell together & then bring it to life? Fact is not one scientist w/ all the modern technology are able to successfully create a living cell, or any life form in the lab out of "atoms/particles", what made u think lightning, sunlight, earthquake accidentally did it? Not a chance. Just as there’s no "chance" a detailed laptop computer can b formed by earthquake, sunlight, wind, & lightning in a trillion years, no living cell can b formed the same way, this HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, NEVER HAVE AND NEVER EVER WILL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.the impossible of the impossible.

I see the battle cry of the close-minded makes every one of Muscleman's aspersions ABSOLUTE TRUTH...

I don’t care what theory you use, theory of evolution, big bang theory, eternally oscillating universe theory, eternallypatheticatheist theory, the delusionallostkids theory, alter-elasticity theory, etc.

Because if you really wanted to debunk science you would care. Or at least you would take the time to find actual flaws in any one of the current theories.

I don’t care about supernova, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, physical pendulum, Casanova, formula E=MC2, mchammer djmix, probability, nsync-nelly dynamics, thermodynamics, virtual particle, critical density, entropy, electromagnetic force, cosmic background radiation, thermonuclear fusion, superfreak mechanics, wave mechanics, optics, etc.

Again, it would appear that lack of care = lack of understanding.

You can give names to what already exist as u wish, call it “stupido mechanics” do whatever u want, fact is NOT ONE among ALL of this can demonstrate creation of ANY life form, from cell to creatures.

It is sad that you're old enough to remember "Superfreak," but your understanding of science is limited to only this.

I don’t care if u measured force, angle, sound, speed, distance, length, time, weight, mass, inertia, force & torque of earthquake, wind, lightning, light, cars, airplanes, my foot up your butt, etc. (laws of physics), Fact is your measuring tape, paper, pen,& Casio stop watch cannot demonstrate creation of ANY life form. You can give names to elements that already exist (periodic table) & play around with it, mix it up etc. or clone humans off existing egg cells, so what. I don’t care if another scientist will come up with a new ways of mathematics other than “geometry & square root” naming it “geostupidroots” explaining m=5, b=3, u=1, d=4. D+U+M+B=13. -d=-4. 4(d=u)=?, etc. I don’t care if u come up with that, as Calvinist in his low life came up with something to waste peoples head with numbers, I don’t care, Fact is numbers is NOT inert compounds, particles, or atoms, number is number. You can label physics by writing measured numbers on paper, but the written numbers doesn’t become atom/particles. I don’t care how much Red ink you waste writing numbers on a paper, if you mix those written numbers with amino acid, its still just a red ink & amino acid on a paper, even if you wrote angles, light, &sound measurements on a paper, putting protein shake or creatine on top of the paper isn’t going to bring the red ink to life, weirdo.

Funny you should mention that science proves nothing, Muscleman, because you still haven't proved that God exists.

Another especially strong evidence of God is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the big bang some fifteen to twenty billion yrs ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions: only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is one in a zillions zillion. Add together each of the chances & u have something far more impossible than a laptop computer formed by series of hurricane, lightning, and earthquake.

But earlier he said science doesn't count. So the stupido superfly mechanics explaining the anthropic principle is as invalid as any stupido superfly mechanics refuting it.

There r relatively few atheist among neurologists & brain surgeons & among astrophysicists, but many among psychologist, sociologist, & historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human design.

Perhaps Muscleman should consult one of these people. Especially a neurologist or psychologist.

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine designer? Just the opposite: Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God.

Actually, either one of them is possible. It's a matter of interpretation. I gave up on documenting the points Muscleman was making because he stopped making them and went on knocking down straw atheists and quantum superfreak biologists.

There’s very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms w/out intelligence design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must b a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most of the great scientists (Albert Einstein, etc.) have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

What created the first life form? Ask yourself that question. We have an explanation, we call it God. If I make such claim, do I have proof that indeed it was God (All knowing: alpha & omega) that created the first life form? Yes I do. The proof is this. Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause (as observed and studied), from biological to technological. Don’t say, "Well if the waves of water formed/shaped the sands differently, it doesn’t mean the waves of water have intelligence", stupid, Waves of water can move sands, but it cannot move sands to form into detailed sandcastles, maybe in trillions and trillions of years, but this is not proven, it is proven however that intelligence can make such act possible. I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.

The most you can hope for is to prove that God can exist, which is not proof of an actual existence. Anything is possible, but not all of it is true. There are no reasons that miniaturized invisible CIA agents with mind control guns are not the cause of every automobile accident in the United States, and science can explain everything those agents would need to be invisible, miniturized, and loaded with psychic weaponry. Therefore it is a possibility, and I could restate that possibility in as many ways as I want with as much evidence supporting the possibility as I could come up with. You would have to disprove me though reductio. But that would be difficult, because the CIA keeps these people secret from everybody, even YOU! That's why I only know enough science to prove you wrong and prove me right.

As a true Christian, we agree of any theories supported with evidence, from evolution to the big bang. Its common sense, existing creatures evolve over time depending on environment, weather & food supply. Lesser food intake leads to smaller life form, more leads to bigger life form. Its common sense, you don’t need to b an expert to figure that out, we evolve from conception to adulthood, as caterpillars to butterflies. Big Bang, law of Newton, math, science, history, and physics are good education, they are taught in Christian college (by the way 99% of universities are founded by Christians, from Princeton to Harvard, so atheist are ridiculous to make a claim their intelligent, when the fact is most of them earn their education from us). The Pope has said we can have an access to evolution. The church even uses true science to verify true miracles. However, we disagree with "chance, coincidence, or Super Luck" as the cause for the extremely detailed & complex life form "cell", as I wrote above, that's already proven through scientific demonstration to be impossible!

He's lost track of his original argument entirely. And quite possibly, his sanity. He seemed to be foaming at the mouth for a while, and he spewed words that had lost all meaning since the 1970's before he tried to pull atheists down to his realm of insanity. At least he's satisfied with his own conclusion, and his victory over himself.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: Re: Re: Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

The first life form is cell, it multiplies & reproduce, contains nucleus (a program; dna), etc.

*snip*

WELL THAN HANS, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THINGS ARE TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, AND IF THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, ARE THEY MYTHS??? ...EDUCATE ME.......

Nobody knows if the earliest cells had DNA. Or how primitive DNA can be.

Scientific methods? Educate yourself. Go and actually read some books on the subject, science books.

Hans

 

[Yahzi]

Musslesforbrains[/B[

Lesser food intake leads to smaller life form, more leads to bigger life form.

Evolution reduced to the simple-minded...

ROFL!

 

[c4ts]

Should I request to move this topic to the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

 

[The Fool]

Should I request to move this topic to the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

I don't think there is much point until Muscleman reveals what feat he is going to do.....

It should be a beauty.....My guess is he will pull god out of a hat.

 

[c4ts]

I don't think there is much point until Muscleman reveals what feat he is going to do.....

It should be a beauty.....My guess is he will pull god out of a hat.

"And fer' my next trick, I'm gonna make science disappear!"

 

[Doctor X]

I would recognize a coherent sentence with some pretension to proper grammer offered by the poor boy as a miracle worthy of notice by Rome.

--J.D.

 

[BobM]

I suppose it was wrong to hope that Muscleman actually had something new.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi be

I agree, but I cant help it. Dummies just tick me off......

[stuggling]
Too. Many. Jokes.

Musn't. Bait. Troll.

Head. Exploding.
[/struggling]

[passes out]

 

[Plutarck]

Has someone gotten around to pointing out that science does not postulate that the evolution of any living thing, nor abiogenesis, happened entirely by "chance"?

 

[Doctor X]

Do not confuse the issue with facts!!

--J.D.

 

[richardm]

Has someone gotten around to pointing out that science does not postulate that the evolution of any living thing, nor abiogenesis, happened entirely by "chance"?

I think it's about time somebody did.

Muscleman, please take a look at this article and let us know what you think of it. Thanks!

 

[Smalso]

The "proofs" of the existance of god offered here are nothing new. I recall the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, setting forth the same arguments back in the fifties and sixties on radio programs, and later on television, and in his writings. (He also predicted, on authority of the Bible, that worldwide nuclear war would begin the Great Tribulation and that civilization as we know it would end in 1975.) It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.