Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Rapture Era]

Then why bring it up in an evolution thread?


Yes.
Because evolution deals with the reason why there are so many different plants and animals on the planet.
I call bull ****.
My first guess is because you keep bringing it up in discussions about evolution as a diversion tactic.
Bold empty claim.
Bold empty claim
Bold empty pile of steaming bull ****
Science changes its stance as new information comes to light.
Problem is that bold empty claims from wishful thinking hold no water with science.
*yawn*
Please wake me when the sermon is over....

Is this how you hold an intelligent dialog? This forum is about discussions on topics. Why are you running away from discussing how the science you so boldly hold to is "changing its stance" to show evolution is now not a viable alternative to life as we know it? All of your "Bold empty claim" jabs above are not helping you. Tell me why they are bold empty claims.

 

[Rapture Era]

Because evolution deals with the reason why there are so many different plants and animals on the planet.

No it doesnt, it propagates single cell organisms as common ancestor to everything we see today, your darwinian tree of life does it not? I'm bringing into question that beginning and everyone flees from it, its a common reaction from evolutionists. What are they scared of? Scientific truth?

 

[viole]

You say its not your opinion but you are trying to make a strong case for it! Why?
You say its basic science but that statement is in grave error! It is not basic science! The whole point is that todays biology science is NOW finding out that life cannot and didnot arise out of nothing! You need to update your science facts. Those books or literature you are reading are not true. Forget about the bible. Pretend it doesnt exist. If you look at todays up to date science discoveries concerning this issue, you will see that the whole evolutionary faith absolutely fails! Do your homework and see for yourself.

Irrelevant. The fact that we are apes is not related in any way with the origin of life, the Big Bang or whatever. I wonder why creationists still confuse evolution from pre-existing life with the genesis of life. All the time. Especially when they are cornered.

So, what about my little deal? I promise I will never call humans apes, in front of you, if you accept that they are primates


Deal?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Since you have a divided mind how are your sure the blurred line is not your own?

I have scripture to support my beliefs.
Exodus 3:4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am."

Clearly God is not the bush. Neither is God Moses, God is God.

Through stilling the mind through meditation, that which is not two is realized, though not permanently of course as the dualistic mind returns when the 'I' returns. But one is able to use conceptual* language in my posts merely as an expedient to explain to you that the dualistic mind can be transcended. But transcendence of duality can never be realized through belief in anything, including scripture, for a mind caught in belief implies a believer and a belief...two aspects of the underlying unity of existence..

* Edited to change "non-dual" to "conceptual" (dualistic)...

 

[Rapture Era]

Irrelevant. The fact that we are apes is not related in any way with the origin of life

Its not? Then tell me how an ape became an ape? Give me some relevance here.

 

[Rapture Era]

I wonder why creationists still confuse evolution from pre-existing life with the genesis of life

Could you please explain this in a little more detail? Especially the underlined part. Thanks!

 

[Kemosloby]

Through stilling the mind through meditation, that which is not two is realized, though not permanently of course as the dualistic mind returns when the 'I' returns. But one is able to use non-dual language in my posts merely as an expedient to explain to you that the dualistic mind can be transcended. But transcendence of duality can never be realized through belief in anything, including scripture, for a mind caught in belief implies a believer and a belief...two aspects of the underlying unity of existence..

Yeah, whatever.

 

[bnabernard]

The problem with both science and religion is the amount of information that is not released, stuff that the great unwashed would not understand and should not understand?
Control, however I notice that when up against the wall science throws it out there in the act of casting it's bread on the water,.
Today they are coming to grips with Enochs reference to portholes of light and trying to develop a gateway into nothing, nothing of course being the conduit that is 'omnipresent', wormhole access the more common reference.
Science would love to cross over between our physical dimension and the dimension refered to as nothing.

 

[ArtieE]

No it doesnt, it propagates single cell organisms as common ancestor to everything we see today, your darwinian tree of life does it not? I'm bringing into question that beginning and everyone flees from it, its a common reaction from evolutionists. What are they scared of? Scientific truth?

No, they are evolutionists and not abiogenesists. Still don't know the difference?

 

[viole]

Could you please explain this in a little more detail? Especially the underlined part. Thanks!

Simple. Evolution explains the development of life under the assumption that life exists. Evolution theory is not concerned with the origin of life. We know how life developed from simple beginnings, but we have very little clue, if any, of the genesis of those simple beginning.

A bit like astrophysics. You can study the birth and evolution of stars without being concerned with the origin of gravitation, the nuclar interactions, hydrogen and all things they need.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rapture Era]

No, they are evolutionists and not abiogenesists. Still don't know the difference?

Right, but what I'm saying is, you cant have evolution without life. Evolution is life from chaos into life with organization. In other words, you start off with meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent life, and it evolves into something that is extremely complex to be able to reproduce after itself. If there is no abiogenesis, that means life was created in order to reproduce after itself. Right?

 

[viole]

Its not? Then tell me how an ape became an ape? Give me some relevance here.

Apes do not need to become apes, obviously. Since they are already apes. I find the question a bit odd.

And no, it is not. Humans split from chimps a few million years ago from a common ancestor. That slowly unfolding event has no relevance towards the origin of life that happened a few billions years ago.

Suppose you claim you went to the movies to watch the latest blockbuster yesterday and you have convincing evidence that you, indeed, went to the movies to watch that movie. What would you think if I rebut your claim with "Nonsense. You did not go to the movies when you were born. That is not possible, that movie did not exist back then".

?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rapture Era]

Simple. Evolution explains the development of life under the assumption that life exists. Evolution theory is not concerned with the origin of life. We know how life developed from simple beginnings, but we have very little clue, if any, of the genesis of those simple beginning.

A bit like astrophysics. You can study the birth and evolution of stars without being concerned with the origin of gravitation, the nuclar interactions, hydrogen and all things they need.

Ciao

- viole

Thank you! This is what I'm getting at.
"Evolution explains the development of life under the assumption that life exists."
The question is how did this life come to being? This is a huge assumption!
"Evolution theory is not concerned with the origin of life.
What I'm trying to bring to light is evolutionists should be concerned about its origins because it is the whole foundation of the theory. Without this knowledge, there is no foundation and the theory falls apart.
"We know how life developed from simple beginnings."
Again my question is how do we know, what is the truth behind this knowledge?
"but we have very little clue, if any, of the genesis of those simple beginning."
You just said above that "We know how life developed from simple beginnings"
And then you say "but we have very little clue, if any, of the genesis of those simple beginning"
Please help me understand. You are contradicting yourself.

 

[ArtieE]

Right, but what I'm saying is, you cant have evolution without life.

Strawman. Never said you could.

Evolution is life from chaos into life with organization.

No it isn't. First life where evolution starts is already organized.

In other words, you start off with meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent life, and it evolves into something that is extremely complex to be able to reproduce after itself.

Wrong again. First life was already able to reproduce.

If there is no abiogenesis, that means life was created in order to reproduce after itself. Right?

Living organisms are either a result of chemical evolution or deliberate creation. Like gods either exist naturally or are the result of deliberate creation.

 

[viole]

Thank you! This is what I'm getting at.
"Evolution explains the development of life under the assumption that life exists."
The question is how did this life come to being? This is a huge assumption!
"Evolution theory is not concerned with the origin of life.
What I'm trying to bring to light is evolutionists should be concerned about its origins because it is the whole foundation of the theory. Without this knowledge, there is no foundation and the theory falls apart.
"We know how life developed from simple beginnings."
Again my question is how do we know, what is the truth behind this knowledge?
"but we have very little clue, if any, of the genesis of those simple beginning."
You just said above that "We know how life developed from simple beginnings"
And then you say "but we have very little clue, if any, of the genesis of those simple beginning"
Please help me understand. You are contradicting yourself.

I don't think they should. If that was the case, there would be no science, since we have ultimately no clue about the origin, if any, of anything.

And where I am contradicting myself? We have no clue about the origin of life, but we have a lot of clues about humans and chimps having a common ancestor. We have no clue about the step that moved no-life to simple life beginnings, but we have a lot of clues that life beginnings were simple.

How is that contradictory?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Thank you! This is what I'm getting at.
"Evolution explains the development of life under the assumption that life exists."
The question is how did this life come to being? This is a huge assumption!
"Evolution theory is not concerned with the origin of life.
What I'm trying to bring to light is evolutionists should be concerned about its origins because it is the whole foundation of the theory. Without this knowledge, there is no foundation and the theory falls apart.

Nonsense. Doesn't matter to evolutionists whether life was created or is the result of abiogenesis.

 

[Rapture Era]

Apes do not need to become apes, obviously. Since they are already apes. I find the question a bit odd.
And no, it is not. Humans split from chimps a few million years ago from a common ancestor. That slowly unfolding event has no relevance towards the origin of life that happened a few billions years ago.

Why do you find the question odd? You are talking about chimps splitting from humans millions of years ago. How do you know this as fact? How do you know life started billions of years ago? What is your base point?

 

[Rapture Era]

We have no clue about the origin of life, but we have a lot of clues about humans and chimps having a common ancestor.

What is the common ancestor of humans and chimps that you have "a lot of clues about"? Dont you think its important to KNOW the origins? How do you know it even happened that way?

 

[viole]

Why do you find the question odd? You are talking about chimps slitting from humans millions of years ago. How do you know this as fact? How do you know life started billions of years ago? What is your base point?

My base point is standard biology, as we know it today So, get a book and get yourself a certain knowlege about it. Or find the weak points on it, you might win a Nobel prize. In case of the latter, I swear on my soul that I will invite you to dinner in the best restaurant in Stockholm.

But please don't tell me you believe life arose on earth 6000 years ago. It is difficult to rationally debate a margin of error of that size. It would be like debating someone who believes the earth is flat.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rapture Era]

Nonsense. Doesn't matter to evolutionists whether life was created or is the result of abiogenesis.

Its not nonsense Artie, its vital. If it didnt happen that way the evolutionist has nothing! Right?