6 reasons why god exist...

[PhAtBoYMr2]

I believe there is a god...I mean most of everything that's happening now has already been proven by the bible... But i guess we'll just have to wait and see....

[ueyedgr8tness]

I believe there is a god...I mean most of everything that's happening now has already been proven by the bible... But i guess we'll just have to wait and see....

100% RIGHT look were it says in 1 chapter about in the end u want be able to tell the season<and look at it hot 1 day and cold another feb we had 67 dg weather wow how could u not believe in the bible and god

[C22H19N3O4]

...I mean most of everything that's happening now has already been proven by the bible.

REALLY? So it's an irrefutable fact that God exists? What a relief!

...1) Mathmatically improbable - approx 10_37 (10 to the 37th power) against it. Imagine having a pile of dimes that cover every square inch of North America - and go all the way to the moon. Now multiple that huge pile of dimes by 1 billion. So you have 1 billion piles of dimes that are EACH the size of NOrth America and are as tall as from here to the moon. Take one dime, mark it, and hide it somewhere in one of those 1 billion piles. Blindfold someone, and have them pick out that one dime at random. The odds of getting that marked dime is 10_37.
2) Read "Darwin's Black Box" - it specifically addresses our DNA strains scientifically, and shows how DNA is, basically in the simpliest terms, and instruction manual. It can give a mutation of "use an 1/8 nut" in place of the correct "use a 1/4 nut; but it cannot have you make a transistor radio when the instructions are for a printer.
3) That's not necessarily true - maybe you just aren't smart enough yet.
4) Anyone can believe what they want - but that does not necessarily make it true or untrue.
5) valid
6) valid
You being here is your proof that a higher intelligence exists. It is mathmatically improbable that this universe could come into existence without help from a greater being. What evidence do you have the evolution exists? Evolution is a sci-fi story (a good one though), that was made up by Darwin's grandfather. They did not have the scientific knowledge of the universe that we have now. How can evolution explain how the universe could come into existence? Scientific laws show that the Big Bang could not have happened. I can explain in more detail if needed.

You know what cracks me up about your posts? All you do is regurgitate "facts" from creationist websites, but you never list your source. You should give credit where credit is due. Also, you claim science isn't all that accurate, but you use science to refute science. Creation science is NOT science. There is nothing intelligent about ID. Remember you thought the Ica stones were real?

http://www.godtube.com/

[David88vert]

REALLY? So it's an irrefutable fact that God exists? What a relief!

You're here aren't you? Care to explain scientifically how the universe could come into existence without a cause/first effect? Give some facts.

You know what cracks me up about your posts? All you do is regurgitate "facts" from creationist websites, but you never list your source. You should give credit where credit is due. Also, you claim science isn't all that accurate, but you use science to refute science. Creation science is NOT science. There is nothing intelligent about ID. Remember you thought the Ica stones were real?

Care to debate DNA? Or universal design? Those facts are not from creationist sites, but from science textbooks. And I am not refuting science at all. I am discussing scientific points, and then looking at what they mean, rather than drawing a conclusion, and trying to unsuccessfully twist observations into my conclusion. And I did give you a book to read in the earlier post. Darwin's Black Box is a book. So the only thing proven unintelligent in this thread has been your post.

[Jaimecbr900]

You know what cracks me up about your posts? All you do is regurgitate "facts" from creationist websites, but you never list your source. You should give credit where credit is due.

Wow, hello pot....my name is kettle.

You regurgitate more minutia than anyone on this board in an ill fated attempt to sound remotely intelligent.

How many "books" and "scientific evidence" have YOU quoted in identical previous discussions? I didn't see any footnotes.

It boils down to one obviously blatant attempt from you to try and "baffle them with bullshit" in all of these "discussions".

Also, you claim science isn't all that accurate, but you use science to refute science. Creation science is NOT science. There is nothing intelligent about ID.

You just like to pick and choose just what "science" you think is factual and which one is not. How convenient.

BTW, LOGIC is not always based on Science. It's ironic that non-believers hold out HOPE and FAITH that someday.....in a far, far away place.....we will finally find "scientific" evidence to finally "prove" there is no God, yet you chastise other people for holding out that same HOPE and FAITH that their God is real.

Not a single "scientist" has ever CREATED life. They can duplicate it. They can dissect it. But not a single one has ever CREATED it. Why???? Because they CAN'T. Yet that same communal mindset is the one that tries to convince people that single celled organisms devoid of any brain matter somehow figured out HOW to CREATE multi-cell and infinitely more complex LIFE. Why is that? So, let's review shall we?:

YOUR infinitely wise and totally correct "science" thinks that non-existent matter crashed into each other somewhere out in outer space and with the Lucky Charms guy magically created the Universe a billion years ago, YET just a relatively short 400 yrs ago that "scientific" thinking thought the Earth was FLAT????

The only EVOLUTION non-believers need to worship is the one fact that THEY need to EVOLVE and understand that they don't know anywhere near as much as they think they do. Remember, 400 yrs ago the Earth was flat to "scientists" of the day. 400 yrs from now, if yall are still around, I'm sure you'll come up with some other truly "scientific" breakthrough......

[quickdodge®]

It's ironic that non-believers hold out HOPE and FAITH that someday.....in a far, far away place.....we will finally find "scientific" evidence to finally "prove" there is no God, yet you chastise other people for holding out that same HOPE and FAITH that their God is real.

As a sort of non believer, I would love to see proof that there is or is not a God. I think it would be awesome for everyone to know, matter-of-fact whether or not a higher power really exists. And I know that this probably wasn't directed in my general direction, but my cuts on religion are only in jest. I won't ridicule someone for their beliefs. Later, QD.

[Jaimecbr900]

As a sort of non believer, I would love to see proof that there is or is not a God. I think it would be awesome for everyone to know, matter-of-fact whether or not a higher power really exists. And I know that this probably wasn't directed in my general direction, but my cuts on religion are only in jest. I won't ridicule someone for their beliefs. Later, QD.

You don't chastise anyone on their beliefs. Viagra boy does.

I'm not sure, but I will take a stab at it.

I think that part of the reason why God doesn't simply just part the heavens and says "howdy do" may be because if you did not come to the decision that he existed on your own then how would it be fair that you reap all the same rewards as someone who didn't need that revelation to believe. Follow?

Look at it like this: Would you prefer to have a friend that is a friend by choice or a friend that someone PAYS to be your "friend"? Same idea I think. Kinda like when you have to remind someone that today is your birthday. How's their sudden, "oops, Happy Birthday." compare to someone who sought you out to TELL you "happy birthday"? Kinda makes a difference, doesn't it?

[quickdodge®]

I think that part of the reason why God doesn't simply just part the heavens and says "howdy do" may be because if you did not come to the decision that he existed on your own then how would it be fair that you reap all the same rewards as someone who didn't need that revelation to believe. Follow?

Look at it like this: Would you prefer to have a friend that is a friend by choice or a friend that someone PAYS to be your "friend"? Same idea I think. Kinda like when you have to remind someone that today is your birthday. How's their sudden, "oops, Happy Birthday." compare to someone who sought you out to TELL you "happy birthday"? Kinda makes a difference, doesn't it?

I got that 100% before your analogy. Remember now, I'm smart. Lolol. I've never heard it put that way. The more I think of your answer, the more it makes sense. But what about the people that do have faith? He should show/reveal himself to them to let them know that their faith is not misplaced or in vain. Later, QD.

[Jaimecbr900]

I got that 100% before your analogy. Remember now, I'm smart. Lolol.

I'm bad about over documenting my posts......

I've never heard it put that way. The more I think of your answer, the more it makes sense. But what about the people that do have faith? He should show/reveal himself to them to let them know that their faith is not misplaced or in vain. Later, QD.

Well, I guess it's the same reason that he doesn't just "appear" to anyone. I believe w/o him appearing before me, so I don't need him to materialize to continue to believe. Sort of the same way we do "good" things w/o anyone asking us to. We just do them. We get some kind of feeling or thought and just act upon that accordingly. Similar thing to believing in God. You read, you go to church, you listen to your parents/family, you ask questions, you do research, and you use logic. Eventually you will find an answer that tilts the scales enough for you to choose one side of the fence over the other. Sometimes it hits you like a bolt of lightning, while others may be more subdued. It's a very individualistic thing. Some very brilliant and very nice people are self-proclaimed Atheists, and that is totally their perrogative. I feel everyone HAS to make that choice on their own. Eventually, everyone does. Not everyone will agree with you on it, but you will have to eventually make a decision one way or another. Some get there quicker than others, but it doesn't matter as long as you have time......alas there's the rub....

[C22H19N3O4]

You don't chastise anyone on their beliefs. Viagra boy does.

I'm only critical of your religious posts b/c they are comical. If you don't like what I post then don't read it. I encourage everyone to respond to my topics, EVEN someone like you. If you can dish it out then you SHOULD be able to take it.

You have yet to answer a question I posed to you last year. It's not verbatim but close enough: if you and every Christian zealot deem science as inaccurate, why do you reap the rewards of it everyday? I know it's an elementary question, but it serves my purpose. I'm willing to bet that if a family member were to become ill you wouldn't call your priest first. Im pretty sure you'd be headed to the ER. Why not just pray about it? Pray and hope that your loved one will pull through and forget about all the advances in medicine. Oddly enough, religious nuts only seem to call the clergy when the patient is near death's door. People like you take comfort in the bosom of science when you need it most, but when it doesn't conform to your propaganda it's the red headed stepchild. Now, the statement is not just meant for Jaime, but for every Christian nut that assumes science is inherently evil.

The only difference is that evolution can be disproven rather easily - but that does not mean that you cannot believe it on faith, which is completely fine.

WOW! You can really disprove evolution through probability/statistics? I'll alert the media, because this is breaking news. Creation scientists will not even make that claim. So your decades in evolutionary biology helped you come to this conclusion? We should just dismiss the last 150 years of research, b/c you know that irreducible complexity lends itself to the fact that evolution is SOOO complex that the probability of evolution having occurred is almost zero? Absolutely amazing! Where did you do your research? I hope you're not of one those guys that reads creationist websites and pretends to know something about science. Im pretty sure you've taken basic science courses and understand common biological terminology?

Now, you mentioned Darwin's Black Box. Michael Behe wrote this book about 10 years ago, he's Roman Catholic, and has NEVER had a peer reviewed article published. So he is not biased at all and claims his ideology does not force him to believe in a Designer? He's been ripped apart for the last 10 years since his book was pusblished. Remember the Dover trial in 2005? Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District


Just some comments by the judge on Behe's testimony:
The judge in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense, citing:

-"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
-'As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
-"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.
-"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.
-"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.
-"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.
-"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
-"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
-"...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
It was easy to debunk Behe b/c the science community and his university do not openly accept his views.

We will discuss the use of probability theory tomorrow.

David, most people truly interested in evolution and/or creationism do not post topics that are several years old. They have moved on to more recent issues and do not take to time to rehash the same old topics. This is how I know you just stumbled upon this issue. If you really want to get down and dirty join up at http://www.scienceforums.net/ or http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/index.php. You want a "rational" debate? Well come on down! I still find it funny that you're brave enough to claim that you can disprove evolution.

[Jaimecbr900]

I'm only critical of your religious posts b/c they are comical.

Glad you like them.

If you don't like what I post then don't read it.

Come up with something more original than that tired ass response.

I don't like what you post because you NEVER give anything else besides what little resides between your ears any validity, opportunity, or chance. You are by far the absolute most biased and closed minded individual on this entire site. Even totally opposing views have had very constructive albeit argumentative debates here, that is until you start to post. What happens then is that it turns debates into cluster fucks because you love to insert personal conjecture and biased propaganda that you google while you get your rocks off getting on people's nerves on purpose.

Can I be any more clear for you?

I encourage everyone to respond to my topics, EVEN someone like you. If you can dish it out then you SHOULD be able to take it.

Name one time I've never "took" what you're tried to shovel around?? Name it.

You have yet to answer a question I posed to you last year. It's not verbatim but close enough: if you and every Christian zealot deem science as inaccurate, why do you reap the rewards of it everyday?

For the exact same reason you're allowed to breathe the AIR that GOD gave you to breathe.

In your world, we take an aspirin for a headache we suddenly become defacto approvers of the big band theory. It figures, but you're so far off the mark it's not even worth the gum off the bottom of your school desk.

Just because someone uses scientific improvements doesn't automatically mean that they endorce science's idea of evolution. That makes no sense whatsoever. So does that mean that if you breathe the air that I believe wholeheartedly GOD made and provides for you that you suddenly believe God exists??? No, right? Then why would me taking advantage of scientific improvements make me any more an endorcer of the big bang theory? How do you tie both together?

I know it's an elementary question, but it serves my purpose. I'm willing to bet that if a family member were to become ill you wouldn't call your priest first. Im pretty sure you'd be headed to the ER. Why not just pray about it? Pray and hope that your loved one will pull through and forget about all the advances in medicine.

I've answered it before and I answered it again above. You just don't like the answer.

Just because I would look to science to mend a broken BODY does not have anything to do with that person's or his/her family's FAITH in God. Nothing at all. So in your thought process, if I go and get my broken arm casted up at the ER it automatically means that I don't believe in God??? How's that work again? I may pray for someone's speedy recovery. I may pray for someone's family to stay strong during a hard time in their life. That doesn't mean that I don't hope and also pray that the doctors and nurses who try and mend them also are successful. So your point is totally invalid and makes no sense. I see where you're going, but you just don't know how to get there.

I'll tell you what....I'll use the same logic right back on you. How come you rely so heavily on your tried and true "science", yet your "science" can't keep us from dying???? If it's sooooo perfectly right as you say it is and base your whole life on, why do people STILL die ON meds and while under Dr's care??? Furthermore, why do people die each and every day eventhough they were given a clean bill of health by DR's? One more since I'm on a roll.....why do people die every day while on PRESCRIBED MEDICINES that someone somewhere swore would prolong their life??? Answer those with science.

Oddly enough, religious nuts only seem to call the clergy when the patient is near death's door. People like you take comfort in the bosom of science when you need it most, but when it doesn't conform to your propaganda it's the red headed stepchild.

See, you are so twisted in trying to refute everything I say that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I'm not arguing against Science. I'm arguing against people that don't use common sense to figure out that there has to be something far greater than US that created, orchestrated, and planned ALL of us being here right now. Science has tried to COPY what has been CREATED before. It has only succeeded in COPYING what is already there. It has NEVER CREATED anything that comes remotely close to what real life creates every day. So for someone to sit there and pompously proclaim that "Science" is the root of humanity and thereby "Science" is how everything around us including humans was created doesn't make any sense to me. If that was so, how come "Science" can't create anything? You are depending your whole life upon something that continuously evolves into something else over time. The belief of God has been basically the same for millenia, yet you want to argue against it using theories that are continuously changing rationale??? Makes no sense to me.

Now, the statement is not just meant for Jaime, but for every Christian nut that assumes science is inherently evil.

As I said above, I don't know where you are getting that I think Science is evil. I don't. I think it is just a tool like every other tool we use to make our life here as comfortable as possible. Nothing at all wrong with it. The only problem I have is when people use "science" as their ONLY belief system, yet see NO flaws with it at all. THAT is my problem with you, NOT science. Science can prove lots of things. It has yet to disprove God though. Why is that? Because it can't. Science of today is obsolete tommorow by yet another "scientific" discovery that today we didn't think existed or was possible. How come "scientist" fall on their ass backwards saying something is dead on balls accurate today, yet tommorow come in to announce a great breakthrough that makes what was accurate yesterday not so accurate today???? This is the theory you want to base your life's belief system on? Fickle and often proving itself wrong.....that is what you base your life's beliefs on??? Good for you.

You may mock my belief system. You may not agree with it. You're also a fool if you think that there isn't another higher power that has orchestrated all of this, including mine and your bickering debates. You hang your hat on the nail of an aging mortar and pestle and I'll just hang mine on the nails of the cross. You choose what you want to believe in. That is exactly what God intended for each and every one of us.....for us to CHOOSE him or not. Each side has its rewards and punishments. Roll the dice the way YOU see fit.

Just some comments by the judge on Behe's testimony:

David's a big boy and he can respond to your comments himself, but I will say this:

A Judge? You're using a court ruling to back up your evolution belief???

Maybe I'll post up what my mechanic thinks.....maybe I'll quote my next door neighbor.....wait, I know.....I'll quote a bum off the corner who is preaching to me to get me to give him money.....

As if a JUDGE is some kind of authority on evolution or science or even religion.

Quote a scientist or a priest, but a judge????

Anyway, I'll let David respond to your reply, but I just had to comment. Carry on.