God is disproven by science? Really?

[ElishaElijah]

Evidence has to be real, available to ordinary senses or instruments, and not requiring assumptions as to what it is and means.

For example, some theists insist that a sunrise is evidence that a God exists. No, it's evidence of a heliocentric planetary system, yet the theist assumes certain things about the sunrise that are not part of the fact or data.

Those who advocate for ID and creationism make similar assumptions that objective thinkers and science does not do.

There are many forms of evidence that are valid. Science as far as evolution is concerned, looks at life currently, then try’s to work backwards to try to figure out how we got here, has just one perspective, rules out intelligent design. So does that mean theory of evolution is random and un intelligent?

 

[ElishaElijah]

To be a bit more thorough. Your testimony is not reliable evidence.

Yes it is, my testimony is consistent with everyone who has been born again of the Holy Spirit for thousands of years now, continuing today. The Bible describes the test for people who have been born again and saved. Very reliable

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is, my testimony is consistent with everyone who has been born again of the Holy Spirit for thousands of years now, continuing today. The Bible describes the test for people who have been born again and saved. Very reliable

No, your testimony is not consistent with that of others. This is shown by the 40,000 some sects of Christianity. Your testimony is of no value as far as evidence goes. Once again, that nonsense does not even meet the looser standard of legal evidence. It can never be scientific evidence.

And that is strike three. You have admitted that you are wrong chances to answer a reasonable question. All you could do is to repeat claims that have been refuted a hundred times at least.

So. Here is what qualifies as scientific evidence:

1. Scientific evidence
   
   Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

What does scientific evidence mean?

Do you want more? This article goes more into practice, but you should be able to see that the underlying definition is the same:

What Constitutes Science and Scientific Evidence: Roles of Null Hypothesis Testing

"Any proposed law of science or hypothesis must have testable predictions. This implies that (1) science is a study of (ideally) repeated events and (2) an essential role of science is to make predictions, so that we can act early and wisely and verify what we believe to be true. "

If you understood what a scientific hypothesis or theory was you would know that they can be used to form testable predictions. The tests can either support or refute the hypothesis or theory. If you do not have reasonable tests you do not have theory or hypothesis and without one of those you do not have evidence by definition.

I could go on, but let's see if you can deal with those right now.

 

[F1fan]

There are many forms of evidence that are valid.

And all valid forms have to be verifiable, and exclude unwarranted assumptions. This is why religious ideas like ID and creationism fails. They don't have valid evidence, and rely too heavily on assumptions that aren't warranted.

Science as far as evolution is concerned, looks at life currently, then try’s to work backwards to try to figure out how we got here, has just one perspective, rules out intelligent design.

because there is no evidence like ID advocates assume is there.

So does that mean theory of evolution is random and un intelligent?

Neither if you are science literate. Your language here is misleading and inaccurate.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Neither if you are science literate. Your language here is misleading and inaccurate.

Why would you use ad hominem and then not even answer the question? Why say anything about it? But the misleading part is from evolutionist, what scientist see are changes within species, then try to apply that to all of creation for example the human evolved from a ape or chimp or monkey. This cannot be proven in the least. Go ahead tell me evolutions starting point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would you use ad hominem and then not even answer the question? Why say anything about it? But the misleading part is from evolutionist, what scientist see are changes within species, then try to apply that to all of creation for example the human evolved from a ape or chimp or monkey. This cannot be proven in the least. Go ahead tell me evolutions starting point.

You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem argument is. Where did he use one? We may have to go over that concept. When it comes to understanding a logical fallacy one has to often go beyond the simplest explanation.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

This is really funny! How many papers does a scientist have to write and explain to show what he found concerning intelligence. Defining and demonstrating and now it’s more unintelligent talk from some on here to explain again. Use your own words???
Well done @MrIntelligentDesign

I think those people who support Evolution. scientists or ordinary, they tried to cover their ignorance of reality by defining and explaining many words incorrectly and vaguely and claim they had the best explanations.

For example, Evolutionists had no definitive definition of species, that is why when they claim that new species had evolved, they could never check correctly if that living organism is really a new species or no. But Evolution discusses about the origin of species.

Evolutionists love to deny the Evolution is an origin theory, but Evolution is an origin of species theory.

Evolutionists had surely distorted the definition and explanations of intelligence and its variants. That is why they had invented 71 definitions of intelligence: all useless, since those definitions could never answer this very simple question: is biological cell intelligently designed or not? Even though I use the variant word like smart or controlled, they could never answer the question:

is biological cell smartly designed or not?

is biological cell controlled or not?

The stupidity from them is so enormous.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, your testimony is not consistent with that of others. This is shown by the 40,000 some sects of Christianity.

Really? You can’t even tell me what they believe, not only that any denomination that has gone away from the clear teaching of the Bible aren’t Christian. God has called believers to be in unity and one body with Christ as the Head. Many denominations are no longer believers and have divorced themselves from Jesus Christ.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, your testimony is not consistent with that of others. This is shown by the 40,000 some sects of Christianity. Your testimony is of no value as far as evidence goes. Once again, that nonsense does not even meet the looser standard of legal evidence. It can never be scientific evidence.

Speaking as a former Christian, I recall how believers would repeat one another's words or sermons. Therefore, Christian testimonies regarding being "born again by the Holy Spirit" frequently sound similar to one another. The biblical doctrine of being "born again" is one that many Christians have been indoctrinated to accept. When I was a Christian, it was what I was raised to believe. However, the theological doctrine of being "born again" is widely known to be from Protestantism, and it isn't adhered to by Roman Catholics.

As a matter of fact, Catholics claim that their church is the one and only "true church," and salvation comes only through Christ and his Catholic Church (source). Meanwhile, most Protestants claim that the true Christian church is universal and includes all believers in Jesus, despite their church affiliation. Is salvation in Jesus conditional or not? Well, the answer depends on which Christian you ask.

The truth is, if you ask a group of diverse Protestant Christians the same theological question, you will get different answers, and all of these Christians will use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are obviously different. You could ask the Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglican Christians, or Protestant Christians. If you go the way of the Protestants, then do you ask the Baptists, the Methodists, the Pentecostals, or the Presbyterians, or do you choose from the hundreds of other Christian churches?

There has always been a lot of division among Christians who believe a different interpretation of the Bible, but most Christians like to claim that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and other Christians are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. They often bicker and debate with each other over what they think the Bible actually teaches. Why should unbelievers believe the Bible is accurate if Christians can't even agree on what it says? Christians can't even agree which one of their churches is the "true church."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? You can’t even tell me what they believe, not only that any denomination that has gone away from the clear teaching of the Bible aren’t Christian. God has called believers to be in unity and one body with Christ as the Head. Many denominations are no longer believers and have divorced themselves from Jesus Christ.

What makes you think that I could not do so? I may be able to do so better than you since I will not have as much of a prejudice against any one sect as you are likely to have. For example, don't you think that a "born again" (once more an abuse of the Bible to use the phrase as you do) Catholic is not going to have different beliefs than a Baptist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think those people who support Evolution. scientists or ordinary, they tried to cover their ignorance of reality by defining and explaining many words incorrectly and vaguely and claim they had the best explanations.

For example, Evolutionists had no definitive definition of species, that is why when they claim that new species had evolved, they could never check correctly if that living organism is really a new species or no. But Evolution discusses about the origin of species.

Evolutionists love to deny the Evolution is an origin theory, but Evolution is an origin of species theory.

Evolutionists had surely distorted the definition and explanations of intelligence and its variants. That is why they had invented 71 definitions of intelligence: all useless, since those definitions could never answer this very simple question: is biological cell intelligently designed or not? Even though I use the variant word like smart or controlled, they could never answer the question:

is biological cell smartly designed or not?

is biological cell controlled or not?

The stupidity from them is so enormous.

Once more you only demonstrate your own ignorance. The concept of a "species" was first made by a creationist. That term is flawed because of that. There is no hard working definition of "species" due to the fact of evolution. If there was such a definition it would actually be evidence for creationism. By the way, this is actually a prediction of the theory of evolution. It tells us that there would be no hard line between species. There was no "first man". There was no "first mammal". What we can see is a gradual change until enough traits are acquired that everyone says "that is a mammal".

That is why modern biology is switching over to cladistics. That can be accurately defined. Cladistics deals with populations. Not some variation of "kind" or "species". A species is still a useful concept at times but one has to remember that it is not an absolute concept.

In a related way we know that Newton's Law of Gravity is not quite correct. It fails rather badly under relativistic conditions. But it still is a useful tool so scientist have not dropped it. For example Newton's Law of Gravity is fine when it comes to things that are even as difficult as a trip to the Moon and back. It works fine for that purpose. But it fails utterly when it comes to GPS. For the GPS on your cell phone to work one needs General Relativity.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Speaking as a former Christian, I recall how believers would repeat one another's words or sermons. Therefore, Christian testimonies regarding being "born again by the Holy Spirit" frequently sound similar to one another. The biblical doctrine of being "born again" is one that many Christians have been indoctrinated to accept. When I was a Christian, it was what I was raised to believe. However, the theological doctrine of being "born again" is widely known to be from Protestantism, and it isn't adhered to by Roman Catholics.

As a matter of fact, Catholics claim that their church is the one and only "true church," and salvation comes only through Christ and his Catholic Church (source). Meanwhile, most Protestants claim that the true Christian church is universal and includes all believers in Jesus, despite their church affiliation. Is salvation in Jesus conditional or not? Well, the answer depends on which Christian you ask.

The truth is, if you ask a group of diverse Protestant Christians the same theological question, you will get different answers, and all of these Christians will use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are obviously different. You could ask the Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglican Christians, or Protestant Christians. If you go the way of the Protestants, then do you ask the Baptists, the Methodists, the Pentecostals, or the Presbyterians, or do you choose from the hundreds of other Christian churches?

There has always been a lot of division among Christians who believe a different interpretation of the Bible, but most Christians like to claim that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one and other Christians are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. They often bicker and debate with each other over what they think the Bible actually teaches. Why should unbelievers believe the Bible is accurate if Christians can't even agree on what it says? Christians can't even agree which one of their churches is the "true church."

Well, one problem is you said you left Christianity 1.5 years ago, yet you are an experienced medium and have been doing that since childhood. Sorry but you failed the test of being a Christian by your own testimony.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Once more you only demonstrate your own ignorance. The concept of a "species" was first made by a creationist. That term is flawed because of that. There is no hard working definition of "species" due to the fact of evolution. If there was such a definition it would actually be evidence for creationism. By the way, this is actually a prediction of the theory of evolution. It tells us that there would be no hard line between species. There was no "first man". There was no "first mammal". What we can see is a gradual change until enough traits are acquired that everyone says "that is a mammal".

That is why modern biology is switching over to cladistics. That can be accurately defined. Cladistics deals with populations. Not some variation of "kind" or "species". A species is still a useful concept at times but one has to remember that it is not an absolute concept.

In a related way we know that Newton's Law of Gravity is not quite correct. It fails rather badly under relativistic conditions. But it still is a useful tool so scientist have not dropped it. For example Newton's Law of Gravity is fine when it comes to things that are even as difficult as a trip to the Moon and back. It works fine for that purpose. But it fails utterly when it comes to GPS. For the GPS on your cell phone to work one needs General Relativity.

1. Species were used in Evolution. Once Evolution stops using species, then, it means that Evolution as theory is wrong. If Evolution uses clad, then, Evolution is saying that I am wrong now, I am transforming to new theory. But still wrong, since the basis is wrong.

2. Gradual change? That is not testable. Is the change intelligently guided or not? Thus, you need to answer that, since if the change is ruled by intelligence, then, you will expect a different scenario. As you can see, your ignorant of intelligence had made science a religion.

3. Remember that Gravity and Evolution are two different explanations. Gravity is not an origin theory or explanation, Evolution is an origin explanation. STOP THE IGNORANCE!

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Species were used in Evolution. Once Evolution stops using species, then, it means that Evolution as theory is wrong. If Evolution uses clad, then, Evolution is saying that I am wrong now, I am transforming to new theory. But still wrong, since the basis is wrong.

Yes, it is still a useful concept. At times. But a times it will fail. That is due to the fact of evolution. Why is this so hard to understand? And no, it does not mean that the theory is wrong. One can still use an outdated but inaccurate tool at times. You are now employing a Black and White fallacy. And the theory of evolution appears to be correct. All of the evidence supports it. No evidence supports you.

2. Gradual change? That is not testable. Is the change intelligently guided or not? Thus, you need to answer that, since if the change is ruled by intelligence, then, you will expect a different scenario. As you can see, your ignorant of intelligence had made science a religion.

Sure it is. Why do you think that it is not? I can explain to you how it can be tested and has been tested. But first you have to either prove that it can't be tested, good luck with that or own up to your error. If you cannot own up to an obvious error that you made I have no compulsion to prove my point.

3. Remember that Gravity and Evolution are two different explanations. Gravity is not an origin theory or explanation, Evolution is an origin explanation. STOP THE IGNORANCE!

Yes, Gravity and evolution are different. The point was that ideas can change and still be of use. And please stop accusing others of your sins.

By the way, why do you believe in a lying God? If you understood the concept of evidence you would see that you and @ElishaElijah both believe that God is a liar.

 

[ElishaElijah]

By the way, why do you believe in a lying God? If you understood the concept of evidence you would see that you and @ElishaElijah both believe that God is a liar.

This is your pet, when will this evolve into something useful? Probably millions of years from now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your pet, when will this evolve into something useful? Probably millions of years from now.

It is useful. It demonstrates that your beliefs are self contradictory. You appear to know that it is true too.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It is useful. It demonstrates that your beliefs are self contradictory. You appear to know that it is true too.

It not true, it’s your go to and all you got, all you’ve demonstrated is that the theory of evolution is built on sinking sand. It’s not intelligent design so it has no intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It not true, it’s your go to and all you got, all you’ve demonstrated is that the theory of evolution is built on sinking sand. It’s not intelligent design so it has no intelligence.

How would you know? You refuse to even learn what qualifies as evidence As result you have no clue if all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution (it does by the way) or not. And if it all supports the theory of evolution then it appears that your version of God is a liar. That is one of the reasons that we know that your version of God does not exist.

And no, the theory of evolution appears to be built on rock. Every new scientific discovery has had a chance to refute it. In fact creationists used to regularly predict that DNA would be evolution's downfall and instead DNA is the strongest evidence that there is for the theory.

 

[ElishaElijah]

How would you know? You refuse to even learn what qualifies as evidence As result you have no clue if all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution (it does by the way) or not. And if it all supports the theory of evolution then it appears that your version of God is a liar. That is one of the reasons that we know that your version of God does not exist.

And no, the theory of evolution appears to be built on rock. Every new scientific discovery has had a chance to refute it. In fact creationists used to regularly predict that DNA would be evolution's downfall and instead DNA is the strongest evidence that there is for the theory.

If DNA is your strongest evidence then it fails. Someone had to write the script and the language, it’s common design by the Creator using His language. Our technology uses His ideas, instead of honoring and thanking God for this we slap ourselves on the back.
Can science predict the future of humanity by using the theory of evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If DNA is your strongest evidence then it fails. Someone had to write the script and the language, it’s common design by the Creator using His language. Our technology uses His ideas, instead of honoring and thanking God for this we slap ourselves on the back.

Sorry, but that is another claim that you would have to prove. There is no evidence that such a being was needed and evidence that tells us that it could have risen naturally.

Evidence can be a very useful concept if one understands it.