A simple case for intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

When oneself doesn’t believe in no gods, then he believes in his own self being goddess in science,
(Science) is man made!
You are given a free will to choose three gods for own beliefs! Your belief in God, the devil himself is another god, or neither! Leaving yourself to Living as a godly.
One thing that one must understand if you don’t have a belief, then what you become of is a Genius, finding all sorts of questions and answers then solving em creating more better knowledge from their many questions and answers..But! that’s the problem, one will not stop! Do you know why geniuses are good at what they do? Because they are unaware of being LOST! Becoming A man of. Questions!
A Lost person asks a lot of good questions and looks to find good answers even strives for the better in questioning to a point where one will not accept one answer, for knowledge being perfected with in their questions never finding peace.

The problem with making a false idol of the Bible, as creationists do, is that if one understands the science that means that that person is calling God a liar. When I was a Christian I did not believe that God lies so I could not believe the myths of Genesis.

 

[ecco]

There are plenty of theists who have no difficulty reconciling their theism with evolutionary theory, because they are honest and strong-minded enough to realize it doesn't matter what method God specifically used, or to pigeonhole God in such a way as to assume that God could or would have brought about life in only one possible way.

More likely, they just don't accept the nonsense that is Genesis.

If Marcion had prevailed, none of this would be an issue today.

 

[ecco]

You are given a free will to choose three gods for own beliefs!

Uh, no. I have free will to choose from thousands of gods:
Parvati, Vishnu, Sri (Lakshmi), Shiva, Sati, Brahma,Saraswati,

1Akan
2Ashanti
3Bambara
4Dahomey
5Efik
6Igbo
7Lugbara
8Lunda
9Lotuko
10Gikuyu
11Pygmy
12Sawar
13Serer
14Shona
15Tumbuka
16Yoruba

• Adjassou-Linguetor
• Anaisa Pye
• Ayida-Weddo
• Ayizan
• Erzulie
• ZEUS JUPITER King of the Gods
  HERA JUNO Goddess of Marriage
  POSEIDON NEPTUNE God of the Sea
  CRONUS SATURN Youngest son of Uranus, Father of Zeus
  APHRODITE VENUS Goddess of Love
  HADES PLUTO God of the Underworld
  HEPHAESTUS VULCAN God of the Forge
  DEMETER Ceres Goddess of the Harvest
  APOLLO Apollo God of Music and Medicine
  ATHENA MINERVA Goddess of Wisdom
  ARTEMIS DIANA Goddess of the Hunt
  ARES MARS God of War
  HERMES Mercury Messenger of the Gods
  DIONYSUS Bacchus God of Wine
  PERSEPHONE Proserpine Goddess of the Underworld
  EROS CUPID God of Love
  GAIA Terra Goddess of Earth
  HYPNOS Somnus God of Sleep
  RHEA Ops Mother of Zeus / Wife of Cronus
  URANUS Uranus Father of the Titans
  NIKE Victoria Goddess of Victory
  EOS Aurora Goddess of the Dawn
  PAN Faunus God of shepherds
  SELENE Luna Goddess of the Moon
  HELIOS Sol God of the Sun
  HERACLES Hercules Son of Zeus
  ODYSSEUS Ulysses

How is it that you are not aware of the gods?

One thing that one must understand if you don’t have a belief, then what you become of is a Genius,

DANG! I've been a genius all my life and never knew it. Bummer.

 

[tas8831]

Kindly read my posts carefully before replying.

Thanks, Dad.

When challenged re: 30 proteins being less than unique, I suggested as a conservative allowance (to make the odds INCREASE for evolution) that 1,000 hypothetical proteins, any 30 of which will work. The odds are still quite high, even though I've gone ahead via natural selection and etc. to increase them by billions.

So generous. But if that is what your intent was, you should have expressed it more clearly, for that is not at ll what you wrote to me indicated.
With your degree in statistics, riddle me this - say we have event X. This event has occurred. Of what relevance is calculating the odds of this event happening, other than to show that after the fact, such calculations are meaningless?

The odds are also astronomical of simultaneity regarding the evolution of the six factors you cited

Seeing as how you have merely asserted all of your claims thus far, I think that your Victory dance is not only premature, but should be an embarrassment to you. And I have seen no actual calculation from you, just taking a number and adding exponents to it. That is not a calculation.

that these 6 factors (note my remarks added to the below):

1. Trauma to tissue including blood vessel (to some of a population)

What does "to some of a population" refer to?

2. Damaged blood vessel and tissues release various compounds due to damage (note that these compounds are similar, but not identical in all vertebrates) (compound release factors evolve)

What is a "compound release factors evolve" ?
Oh - you interpreted that to mean that these compounds are 'released' actively? No - see, here is where you show how your lack of relevant biological knowledge hinders you. These compounds are releases when the cell is ripped open. You are just adding 'volition' where none is needed.

3. Damage to vessel endothelium creates 'rough' surface; blood components now exposed to collagen and other extravascular proteins ('foreign' materials, in effect); larger blood vessels experience muscular spasm (spasm response evolves or has already evolved)

Spasm is due to tissue damage.

4. Platelets bind to 'rough' damaged endothelium, release clotting factors (platelets "release clotting factors" evolve)

"platelets "release clotting factors" evolve" - what does that mean?

5. Clotting factors (not the same in all vertebrates) initiate cascade of reactions that results in cleavage of fibrinogen, which then reforms as a fibrin network, 'catching' RBCs (fibrinogen in organic life evolves)
6. clotting factors, material released from damaged tissues, and some clotting cascade intermediates act as chemo-attractants for some WBCs (WBCs naturally selected to bind, cascade intermediates evolve)

OK, I get it - you are just adding "x must evolve" at every step because you think that these things are all solely relevant to clotting, and had to have evolved specifically for this.

Remember when I countered your claim about a knowledge of statistics should be a prerequisite for studying biology and phylogenetics with knowledge of biology and phylogenetics was actually required? Same applies here.

As it is with all creationists, even those operating under the pretense of being logical and Socratic and just wanting to learn, when it comes down to a discussion, it is ALWAYS just an attempt to ignore/weasel out of damaging situations, usually by adding additional criteria.

Your technique is tiresome, disingenuous, and pathetic. You really need to study the subject before launching into a 'debate' armed with only an ability to misrepresent the opposition and continually add criteria to what you will accept as answers (never answering others' questions, also) - i.e., moving the goal posts (and in this case, by generally not understanding where these other things came form).

You could have read the paper I linked to, but that would have taken away your just-so retorts.

The just-so story is vastly, exponentially enlarging, given the fact that the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part (or up to 6 parts in the above, not including cellular motor parts to drive them except platelets as you wrote) quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, thousands to millions of years later, all are in place, while the species that needed clotting survives when it bleeds from natural causes or prey attack.

Speaking of just-so stories...Tell us all how many mutations you know are needed for these things and how you determined this. You seem to pretend to know all about how mutations work, how the beneficial ones only work if no harmful ones occur, etc. Explain it all to us, won't you?

The new part starts working, (clotting) natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races.

Since this is a religiousforum, I feel it's okay to mention, respectfully, you have a spiritual block in place that makes you believe evolution is magic, all-powerful.

Oh my goodness, my feelings are so hurt by your meany condescension, I am wondering if I should bother continuing to engage with you!!!

But as you are without this spiritual block, please explain to us how Yahweh made thousands of organic molecules from silicates, and how He made a fully formed adult human male out of these silicates. With supporting documentation and experiential justification.

Take your time.

 

[tas8831]

As is so often the case, it is almost more entertaining and informative to see what creationists ignore or dodge in their replies than what they do reply to.

The prior to life referent are the proposed probionts. It's unfair of me to assault abiogenesis without recognizing modern theorizing the in a RNA-world or otherwise, prebiotic precursors to life were formed first, via mechanistic processes.

Not as unfair - and dishonest - of you to bring up abiogenesis when discussing evolution, especially when you refuse to offer evidence of the mechanism by which silicates were turned into a man with no intermediates and no known means by which to do so.

You believe in seafloor vents creating hypothetical probionts suspended in lipids for endless years, recombining against the 2nd law of thermodynamics and vulcanism and tide action and seawater to "make life". The probionts and bacteria of abiogenesis were IN a fluid system called an ocean.

You believe in an ancient middle eastern tribal deity poofing the universe into existence all at once from nothing and then forming a man from the dust of the ground (silicates) all at once via magic - after He had created all the other animals and such.

But thanks for telling me what I believe in an effort to avoid admitting your laughable errors.

It was most informative to see what you dodged or failed to reply to. Here is my original post - what you ignored/dodged is in red:

Amazing stuff - I was unaware that bacteria are now considered fluids and that their movements require neurological and multiple systems also moving/catalyzing - even at a level devoid of life! Amazing insights!

But I note that did not explain why none of the papers (at least one of them from which you must have gleaned your appendix information) even contained the word "enzyme" even as they described the function of the appendix.

I would also like to learn more about this movement and catalysis - what is moving and what needs to be catalyzed for fluid bacteria to re-colonize the gut after a bout of diarrhea. I am especially intrigued about this prior-to-life level that you speak of - is that the spirit realm? Can't wait to see the evidence!


Having taught college genetics for about 6 years, yes, yes I am. Not sure what that has to do with enzymes or bacteria being fluid or the Spirit realm.


​

 

[tas8831]

You clearly did not read my post.

Right - your brilliance was too much for me to deal with, so I didn't read it when I replied to it section by section...

It's unfair to take random odds only, therefore I reduced an initial figure of 10^32 by saying natural selection et al reduced the figure by 10^16! (Making natural selection far less odds than even 1:1.

Yes, I saw that. But that is irrelevant to where you got the initial figure from in the first place. You just made it up, because you don;t seem to know much about BIOLOGY or PHYLOGENY.

It was reasonable to set a semi-random occurrence driven by selection, mutation, biological necessity (cecal appendix first forms) at 1:10.

How is it a "biological necessity" when not all mammals have it, and in those that do, there is no correlation to ANY 'lifestyle' attribute except colon size? See - this is why it would help you to understand biology and phylogeny FIRST.

Since evolutionists claim this occurred 32 times, I set the odds at a reasonable 10^32, then reduced all the way down to 10,000,000. In my post, which you didn't read, being dismissive, rude and saying GIGO--I reduced my odds of a cecal appendix being formed 32 times from 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000.

Right - a guy with a statistics degree claiming that the concept of GIGO is "rude".....

Be reasonable. Think!

Interesting commandment. I asked you about their phylogenetic trees, and I note that you did not even mention that. Almost like you avoid what you do not understand.

Let us again look at what the creationist decides to ignore. Things ignored in red:

Why do creationists do this? WHY 'no harmful mutations'?

Is it your learned and open-minded position that the existence of a harmful mutation anywhere in the gene(s) associated with the appendix nullify the beneficial mutations?

If so, please explain - with references - how this was determined.

Also let us know how many beneficial mutations (with, of course, no bad ones) were required to get a bit of cecum to expand into an appendix, and how this was determined.

After all, if you cannot provide your numbers and JUSTIFY them, why take you seriously?


Please explain the anatomy of the appendix and the cecum, and explain what structures must have also been altered to get the appendix.

Is it your understanding that, say, the cecum also has to be mutated in order to allow the appendix to be present?

Please establish that there must be a 'system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix - which you have indicated are now a liquid.​

Wow... Looks suspiciously like the creationist ignored EVERY question regarding his claims re: the determining of variables and necessities and biology and the like. Almost like he is trying to hide something...

You know, in a 'debate', both sides get to have their questions answered, especially when those questions are germane to the arguments at hand. No?




Maybe that Spiritual block I have allows me to see hypocrisy and the Dunning-Kruger effect more readily than those without it...

 

[tas8831]

And if we removed faith from your post, we'd see why it's hard to talk to you. Of course, you haven't claimed you want to learn anything, and instead of reading my post you labeled in GIGO.

I cited the ability of the magic known as natural selection et al to INCREASE the odds of beneficial mutation by not less than -1^16!

I am going overseas for two weeks, I hope you will calm down enough to read my posts before replying, when I return. If not, tell me where you teach, and I'll see if I can afford the expenses to debate you at a forum at your institution.

I hope you grow up enough to actually address the issues that I and others have brought up regarding the shortcomings in your just-so, assertion-based "arguments", and stop hiding behind these 'you are not being so nice to me' dodges.

In red, what you did not even give a dismissive blow-off to:

Why do creationists do this? WHY 'no harmful mutations'?

Is it your learned and open-minded position that the existence of a harmful mutation anywhere in the gene(s) associated with the appendix nullify the beneficial mutations?

If so, please explain - with references - how this was determined.

Also let us know how many beneficial mutations (with, of course, no bad ones) were required to get a bit of cecum to expand into an appendix, and how this was determined.

After all, if you cannot provide your numbers and JUSTIFY them, why take you seriously?


Please explain the anatomy of the appendix and the cecum, and explain what structures must have also been altered to get the appendix.

Is it your understanding that, say, the cecum also has to be mutated in order to allow the appendix to be present?

Please establish that there must be a 'system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix - which you have indicated are now a liquid.​

 

[tas8831]

Crucify me, for I used the wrong term? A protowing is a fully formed appendage, it speaks only to the just-so story of how saying the mutations in DNA needed to build a complicated new part quietly accumulate in duplicate genes, because by themselves each of the necessary mutations is neutral, neither beneficial nor harmful. Then, millions of years later, all are in place. The new part starts working, natural selection chooses it, and the improved creature is off to the races... but, the responses here continued to be rude to my inquiry, and apparently, only I wrestle with the magic powers that determine in evolution what is a protowing, what is vestigial, ancillary, etc. -- wait I forgot, you simply swap around the phylogenic trees more.

It is so cool how you keep adding things to your "arguments" as time goes on, usually after someone has pointed out a shortcoming in your previous iteration of your unsupported -assertion-based arguments. Like now you have brought up duplicated genes in response to having it pointed out to you that a whole suite of new beneficial mutations did not have to arise all at once because a brand-new wing was not needed as it is premised on variation of what is already there.
it is almost as if you do not have a foundational understanding of what evolution actually entails - this is a common side effect of getting one's knowledge of a subject from an advocacy group opposed to that thing, like getting all your info on GMOs from anti-GMO groups.

Erm... do you want to ask me any questions about my beliefs and notions or simply bash me as an ignoramus. Are all creationists idiots, do you think?

I have asked you many things about your beliefs, and you seem to just totally ignore them as I have recently documented. That is disingenuous and dishonest.

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

 

[tas8831]

No link? Try again. The odds are that your source was a creationist one and at best they got a valid source wrong.

It is a legit paper, but I think their conclusions are exaggerated and somewhat at odds with the very information they supply.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068312001960

 

[tas8831]

Not having a cecal appendix than having one is a "slight variation"? I'm being Socratic here, for your benefit.

This where an understanding of developmental biology and genetics would be of assistance. I had asked you to describe the anatomy of the appendix and the cecum (which you ignored) for a reason. Other than additional aggregates of immune nodules, the appendix is little more than an evagination of the cecum. Understanding that morphology can be changed with as little as a single point mutation in a gene involved in development should make creationists a bit more conservative n their "not enough beneficial mutations"-type arguments. That so many creationists (including many 'professional' ones) still use versions of such an argument tells me much.

Oh, right, so disrespectful to point out a lack of knowledge in someone exhibiting it, my apologies.

 

[tas8831]

The subset of dishonest creationists must be small, because we answer to a higher source than fellow forum posters.

Non-sequitur. Followers of this higher power seem to be able to merely assert that, upon having done something wrong and asking for forgiveness, to always get it and move on the the next iteration. Seems like a 'get out of jail free card' situation rather than an umbrella of righteousness and humility - for where is the deterrent if you know that no matter what you do or say, you will be 'forgiven' just by asking, especially if you are doing the bad thing 'for the cause'?

I'm well aware that evolution improves gradually on existing formations, refining them, as you said, which if we believe as 100% true, gives us in this case:

1) Many, many species were surviving without a cecal appendix

And still do.

2) 32 separate times, an appendix evolved

I disagree, but OK..

3) Despite the "necessity" for 32 iterations, some think it's now vestigial as an organ

if it was a necessity, why do we see figures like this in your paper of choice:

Note that most look like mere extensions of the cecum, not some brand newly-evolved structure. Or this:

Note that MOST mammals DON'T HAVE ONE.
So your claim of necessity seems , at best, unwarranted.

WHY?

the definition of vestige
Biology . a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.

Not the best definition, but enough there to answer your WHY?

Now if you could answer MY why questions:

Why do creationists do this? WHY 'no harmful mutations'?

Is it your learned and open-minded position that the existence of a harmful mutation anywhere in the gene(s) associated with the appendix nullify the beneficial mutations?

If so, please explain - with references - how this was determined.

Also let us know how many beneficial mutations (with, of course, no bad ones) were required to get a bit of cecum to expand into an appendix, and how this was determined.

After all, if you cannot provide your numbers and JUSTIFY them, why take you seriously?


Please explain the anatomy of the appendix and the cecum, and explain what structures must have also been altered to get the appendix.

Is it your understanding that, say, the cecum also has to be mutated in order to allow the appendix to be present?

Please establish that there must be a 'system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix - which you have indicated are now a liquid.​

PS. I've clearly answered the question for myself (evolutionary theory is just-so stories, in large part) and here's your chance to change my mind.

Like Ken Ham, I submit that you will never change your mind no matter what.

PPS. Saying, "you don't understand basic biology" and "you don't understand evolution" when I successfully completed biology, statistics, anatomy, etc. for multiple degrees is akin to saying, "I don't really have facts for you, just rhetoric."

So now you have added biology and anatomy to your statistics expertise?

So let me see... You were required to have a couple of science classes as an undergrad for your general education requirements. And so you took gen bio and maybe some lower-level anatomy course to fulfill this requirement (or you had some anatomy in your intro bio courses). And you think this means that you understand evolution and biology, despite several of us finding glaring holes in the same.

Can I make math arguments that I can ignore your critiques of? After all, I took statistics (got an A in the class, tied for the highest grade!) in undergrad. Also took Trig and a bunch of stuff I have been trying to forget.

DO BETTER.

OK Dad. Right after you answer our questions for once.

Or, if you like, tell me (or yourself) WHY and HOW evolution gradually improves existing forms without using the canard, "so slowly, that this may be seen neither today nor in the fossil record, except with fully-formed, complete species".

Better yet, you tell me how taphonomy works and why you think there should be fossils of, apparently, every intermediate. And then me all about how mutations affect phenotype. After all - declarations about how many mutations are needed and when necessitates such an understanding.
BE LOGICAL.

WHY is there no such thing as a half-arm, if some mutations are harmful, some beneficial, how does evolution achieve godlike power to overcome?

And there we are...

 

[tas8831]

About a dozen major religious texts are extant.

I've explored the phylogenic trees of religion for lines of common descent.

One ancient tradition, whose scriptures reckon among the oldest, contains lines of evidence not present in the other dozen texts, verifiable via archaeology, history, scientific accuracy, etc.

Citation please - I should like to see the character list. What package did you use to perform this 'phylogeny' analysis?

 

[tas8831]

Consider how phylogenic trees are formed--DNA has been a help, but basically it's lining up creations and placing similar features together, in our imagination, in the case of ancient life forms.

Is that really how phylogenetic trees are formed? Because I have been doing them for a couple of decades, and some of my papers are cited in TOLWeb, and I have never performed a phylogenetic analysis the way you dismissively and ignorantly describe. it is almost as if you have no idea how a phylogenetic analysis is done.

But no, BE BETTER and explain how such analyses are done.

 

[tas8831]

Just a reminder...

Wings require complex changes in body mass, proprioception, sight, thermoregulatory systems. Be real. Be consistent. Be logical.

Regarding being logical - do tell why a wing requires "complex changes in body mass, proprioception, sight, thermoregulatory systems".

Start by defining how those systems work, then explain why a wing would require changes in them, and what those changes must be, and how you know.

Being logical, of course.

 

[Polymath257]

I am almost considering starting a thread to compile all of the assertions that BB makes that he cannot/will not provide explanations or justifications for...

*** Mod Post ***

I remind you that call-out threads are considered a violation of rule 1.

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

 

[tas8831]

It's funny of people who promote the scientific method as the be-all never admit whether something is considered to be evidence or not is purely subjective.

Can you explain how it is subjective? I agree that it often is, but can you justify saying it always is? And it it is always subjective, what criteria do you suggest to assess its validity?

Obviously, an omnipotent God is fully capable of creating the Universe in any amount of time including ALL the fake carbon and fossil dating evidence.

So you have concluded that "carbon and fossil dating" is fake - what evidence did you use to draw that conclusion? Keeping in mind that according to you all evidence is subjective...

Whether or not you accept ALL of existence as evidence of an omnipotent God is purely a subjective choice made by the observer/participate.

OK, I reject it. But I reject it because what is typically presented as evidence is mere assertion, devoid of any corroboration or anything that one would consider objective evidence.

 

[tas8831]

But if you do not understand that creation scientists have hundreds of papers extant relating modern phylogeny and fossils to creation... your statement showed you've never read anything printed by creationists.

Papers? I think you mean essays.

I have several volumes of CRSQ and have read dozens of 'technical' papers by creation scientists, most of whom, by the way, write well outside of their actual field of expertise.

Nearly all such papers are just attacks on evolution, usually premised on flawed reasoning or even fabrication. I have never seen a paper by any creation scientist that purported to have tested some aspect of creationism. They never will, probably out of fear.
I am aware of what used to be called the Baraminology Study Group, lead by Todd Wood and Kurt Wise, creation scientists who are unique in that they have both admitted that the evidence does point to evolution, but that they reject this due to their Faith in Scripture.
The BSG now either has a new name of is defunct, but for a time they sought to examine, using science, the relationships between 'baramina' (created Kinds).
It was funny and sad to see their work - an honest analysis supported evolution, but they employed what they called "the Scriptural criterion" - this allowed them to dismiss results that did not comply with their interpretation of scripture (such science!).
More recently, we have people like Jeff Tomkins trying to 'undo' pretty much any genetics-related evidence putting chimps and humans together as having a shared ancestry. Jeff relies on his target audience not understanding the technical details of his output, and leaping to his defense when he is outed as making errors or worse. He has, for example, tried to nullify the 'percent similarity' issues, as well as the chromosome 2 thing (which he misrepresents from the outset). Pity that his efforts have been largely exposed as deceptive or error-riddled (one example here).

But I am sure that the creation scientist papers you hint at are totally legit and accurate.

 

[tas8831]

*** Mod Post ***

I remind you that call-out threads are considered a violation of rule 1.

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

Well, I did say "considering"...

 

[tas8831]

What I see is a person that is speaking of the evolution of species as if every species evolved from scratch to its present condition independently and had to make all the adaptations as individual species. This was clear in your thoughts on probabilities and it is clear here. When a species evolves, it has new, derived traits, but it brings ancestral traits with it. Every system does not have to evolve each time speciation occurs. You may say you understand that, but it is clear from your words that you do not.

Concur 100%

I attended a talk a few years ago about the 'deep roots' of humanity's traits. The speaker went into some detail, but the gist of it was - the mammalian ancestor had hair, a frontal lobe, ball-and-socket joints in the shoulders and hips... we still have hair, and our frontal lobes and shoulder and hip joints are but slight modifications of this proto-mammal.

I think BB's implicit position on this is pretty common among creationists, and it is sad that most of the professional creationists do nothing to dissuade the lay folk from embracing it.

 

[Workman]

Ok! That is your opinion which is not mine to place a disagreement! My difinition of the word “GOD” May be different to some! Ones define in whole selfs through which beliefs becoming godly to our own goddess, but we are the controlling of our own being as gods. There is but one True God we cannot define “Divine God”

Science is man made from godly like

There are but only one True God and the many truth God. (Two Gods)
(1) is the one True God that works in many different understandings(religions).

And the other is (2) evil which can create in the thousands or millions where science is one of em.
But can not define in (1)