Whats the proof that god exists?

[Zero]

Here's Behe:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

And here's the Discovery Institute: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1075

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

I don't envy anyone who cannot be honest about their intentions. That pretty much overs the entire Discovery Institute...they are liars, and frauds. Actually, their crime is worse than that. What makes them so horrible is how the corrupt the intellectual integrity of the people who trust them. I think it is great that people look beyond the attitude of "the Bible says so, so it is true" and try to find out whether their beliefs are backed up by reason and science. Maybe that is why I am so upset that the best they can find is something like the Discovery Institute. They aren't good Christians, because they denounce their Christian ties, but they aren't good scientists, because they start out with the Bible, and manipulate the data to fit that worldview. They are in fact the worst of both worlds, and should be rightly denounced by both sides.

Still just your vitriol without proof.

Intolerance is evidence of impotence.

ATTRIBUTION: Aleister Crowley

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

Just saving this so it can't be edited out later...evidence, it isn't just for scientists!

WHAT? What kindergarten did you graduate from?

Saving this one too...I can't wait for kerrie to take a look at this thread!

 

[Zero]

Anyhoo, to get back on topic, it seems to me that anything like ID or "irreducable complexity" can't be used as a proof of "God", on account of the fact that it could have been Martians who did it.

 

[onycho]

YEP THATS PROOF ALRIGHT

Originally posted by Zero

Here's Behe:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
And here's the Discovery Institute: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1075

Zero, do you have a brain in your acephalic head?

You say here's the Discovery Institute as proof of being a religious front group.

Well you forgot to mention one little tiny detail. Your site proofs are the religious group known as the 'Americans United for Separation of Church and State' and that Galapagos Island virtual on-line university.

Hardly independent unbiased atheist anti-religious organizations decrying a scientific prestigious institute like the Discorvery Institute.

You'll have to do better. Try proving your point with The Discovery Site information site itself or a recognized unbiased scientific institute that finds 'Discovery Institute' a religious front.

 

[Zero]

Nobody else really cares about the Discovery Institute, since they are a political and religious group, not a scientific organization.

Now, see if you can't get back on topic.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

Anyhoo, to get back on topic, it seems to me that anything like ID or "irreducable complexity" can't be used as a proof of "God", on account of the fact that it could have been Martians who did it.

Never did try to prove irredicible complexity as proof of any G-d. It simply proves that putting broken cans and bottles into a mixer does not produce a working computer.

You are the one equating irreducible complexity with a diety.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

Anyhoo, to get back on topic, it seems to me that anything like ID or "irreducable complexity" can't be used as a proof of "God", on account of the fact that it could have been Martians who did it.

Never did try to prove irredicible complexity as proof of any G-d. It simply proves that putting broken cans and bottles into a mixer does not produce a working computer.

You are the one equating irreducible complexity with a diety.

Nice strawman analogy.

Anyhoo, if irreducable complexity has nothing to do with mythological beings, then why is it being discussed in this thread. Your posting about irreducable complexity is off-topic.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

Nobody else really cares about the Discovery Institute, since they are a political and religious group, not a scientific organization. Now, see if you can't get back on topic.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? It just happens to be one of the many scientific insitutes, teaching facilities and universities that Dr. Behe is associated with.

You are the one trying to prove the impossible with devious accusations.

 

[Zero]

So, getting back on topic, does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any mythological being?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

Nice strawman analogy. Anyhoo, if irreducable complexity has nothing to do with mythological beings, then why is it being discussed in this thread. Your posting about irreducable complexity is off-topic.

Strawman analogy? Irreducbile complexity just happens to be a very real observation and well documented. You are the one on this thread that is totally uncomplex with your preconceived ideas about gods and mythological beings.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

So, getting back on topic, does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any mythological being?

Are you referring to the mythological Monitar or the white flying horse of Hercules?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

So, getting back on topic, does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any mythological being?

Are you referring to the mythological Monitar or the white flying horse of Hercules?

Those, plus Zeus, Odin, Thor, Yahweh, whatever thing Joseph Smith claimed to have talked to, Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Satan, Isis, or anyone of the other 5000 or so deities that people have believed in.

(*the heck is a Monitar?!?*)

 

[TENYEARS]

physican, look the smucks are trying to get your goat. They already stole it and are cooking it over a barbaque. The intent of the orignal conversation is gone and so am I on this thread.

When I referred to time as a physican, it was not ment as a derogatory comment, but that your mind was being channeled on other tasks. As to what I know, part of it will be known as fact in your lifetime. The world is not as it was when life regenerated in the past, today is far different. There are new factors which have never been present before. Everyone has the right to talk in absolutes even if they do not understand them, but to live in them when the tide is not just right will test the metal of your speach.

Zero/FZ, get a life.

 

[TENYEARS]

Originally posted by Zero
Those, plus Zeus, Odin, Thor, Yahweh, whatever thing Joseph Smith claimed to have talked to, Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Satan, Isis, or anyone of the other 5000 or so deities that people have believed in.

(*the heck is a Monitar?!?*)

"Moroni". It may have happened. And they may have actually migrated to south america, also. Other sources buddist monks who supposedly landed in south america saw indians with blue eyes and carts I think oxen or donkeys. This was apparently not indiginous to the area. I don't know for all that I read may be a lie so that is why if one does not figure it out themselves they are not interested in the truth. That is the only way the truth may come.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
"Moroni". It may have happened. And they may have actually migrated to south america, also. Other sources buddist monks who supposedly landed in south america saw indians with blue eyes and carts I think oxen or donkeys. This was apparently not indiginous to the area. I don't know for all that I read may be a lie so that is why if one does not figure it out themselves they are not interested in the truth. That is the only way the truth may come.

You do realize how funny that is, right? "Moroni"?

Anyhoo, to get back on track, where is the proof?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by TENYEARS

"Moroni". It may have happened. And they may have actually migrated to south america, also. Other sources buddist monks who supposedly landed in south america saw indians with blue eyes and carts I think oxen or donkeys. This was apparently not indiginous to the area. I don't know for all that I read may be a lie so that is why if one does not figure it out themselves they are not interested in the truth. That is the only way the truth may come.

Misspelled: mythological Minotaur

http://www.offrench.net/photos/photo.php?photo=584&exhibition=5

The proof of a deity has been disproved by your essense causing this thread to have a putrid odor.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho

The proof of a deity has been disproved by your essense causing this thread to have a putrid odor.

Ummm...what the heck are you talking about?

 

[ahrkron]

Form the website of the Society for Neuroscience (http://web.sfn.org/ ):

SfN Statement on Evolution and Intelligent Design

Recognizing that the theory of Evolution is the fundamental scientific theory or cornerstone that helps us to understand and study the origins and diversity of living organisms, the Society for Neuroscience supports teaching evolution in science classrooms, and opposes the assertion that Intelligent Design Theory (ID) is a valid scientific alternative.

The debate in America surrounding the teaching of Evolution in science classrooms began with the Creationist claim that the Darwinian concept of natural selection was incorrect, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it. Creationism, a theory attempting to explain origins of life through supernatural causes, as opposed to scientific ones, failed. Intelligent Design, a revised Creationist effort to claim scientific legitimacy, purports to present a highly disputed philosophical theory as valid scientific theory. Differing from Creationism, ID is not directly supernaturally based. Intelligent design cites, as one of its core principles, “intelligent causes” as the explanation of the complexity of biological structures. Attempting to become credible in the face of Creationism’s failure, ID is devoid of potential to create sound scientific results and explanations. Therefore, it would, as its proponents intend, subserve the goals of the Creationist effort.

The theory of Evolution serves as the basis for the biological sciences’ understanding of the origins and diversity of all living organisms and is accepted with remarkable consensus in the scientific community. It explains and supports findings in scientific areas ranging from botany to zoology and embryology to neuroscience. Additional support is found within independent scientific sources such as archaeology and molecular biology. Though scientists can differ regarding certain aspects of Evolution, the differences constitute testable hypotheses. Thus, SfN believes that teaching Evolution is an essential component of modern science education. K-12 science education based on anything other than tested and accepted scientific theory is counterproductive to the education of America’s youth.

For these reasons, the Society for Neuroscience categorically opposes the teaching of ID in science classrooms. Further, the Society for Neuroscience emphatically supports the teaching of Evolutionary theory, as it is necessary for a valuable scientific education and for understanding of the diversity and origin of all living organisms.

The Society was formed in 1970. It has more than 34,000 members and is the world's largest organization of scientists devoted to the study of the brain. It publishes the scholarly journal The Journal of Neuroscience, and a variety of other publications.

(http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSfN1/Guidlines/evolution.html )

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Form the website of the Society for Neuroscience (http://web.sfn.org/ ):



The Society was formed in 1970. It has more than 34,000 members and is the world's largest organization of scientists devoted to the study of the brain. It publishes the scholarly journal The Journal of Neuroscience, and a variety of other publications.

(http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSfN1/Guidlines/evolution.html )

They're only saying that because they hate G-d!


LMAO, good post, bub.

 

[Janitor]

Zero,

Do you seriously doubt that Joseph Smith temporarily had possession of golden plates with writings on them that came straight from the mind of God, and that Smith could read them with magic spectacles provided to him by God, and that Smith carelessly forgot where he left the plates and spectacles so that later on he was unable to show them to skeptics? My goodness, what are we going to do with you?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Janitor
Do you seriously doubt that Joseph Smith temporarily had possession of golden plates with writings on them that came straight from the mind of God, and that Smith could read them with magic spectacles provided to him by God, and that Smith carelessly forgot where he left the plates and spectacles so that later on he was unable to show them to skeptics? My goodness, what are we going to do with you?

Oh, how DARE I?!? What was I thinking, of course it makes perfect sense!

 

[pallidin]

I agree.

In my opinion, Joseph Smith's "religion" is complete bunk.
Along with JW's, I guess I'm not sure which I find to be more pathetic or foundationally absurd. OK, both.
What continues to amaze me is that new "recruits" happen every day!
Wow! Are some people susceptable to outright manipulation or what!

 

[pallidin]

To onycho:

Greetings.
I have followed this thread with great interest, and posted a comment from which you took notice and responded. Thank you for your comments, and I do mean that.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the embodiment of the discourse throughout this thread, but have also taken notice of a developed tension between yourself and others. In all fairness, I should point-out that the tension created was by no means one-sided, and several parties are indeed involved.
Nonetheless, I find your comments and insights to be of great interest to me and of value to the community for inspection.
In a forum setting, I would suppose that it is much more advantageous to all if one addresses the issues presented by a poster, as opposed to responding to the emotional interludes of the poster(s) themselves.
Of course, this can be inherently difficult, as strong opinions are often accompanied by strong minds, and are we not tempted to defend ourselves and/or our position under those circumstances?
I know I have done it from time-to-time. But it's wrong. Not only is it wrong for any given discussion, it is also wrong for the participants or "silent" viewers of it.
Much can be gained through discourse. Let us continue in a fashionable way worthy of our standings and endeavors.

Pallidin

 

[Kerrie]

locked for obvious reasons.