Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!

Solitary said:
Watermark's comments are right on the money.

The idea that a theory is scientific when it revolves around a central power, about which there is not one shred of scientific evidence renders the theory null and void.

Intelligent Design is a BELIEF, not a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Dixie wouldn't know a scientific theory if it fell on him and banged him like his second cousin from Tupelo.:clink:
 
there is not one shread of evidence that one being created everything. It still leaves you with who created the one being.
Click to expand...

First of all, who said the intelligent designer was a "being?"
Secondly, of course there is no evidence to prove it, if there were, we wouldn't be debating it, we would know for certain because it could be proven. The purpose of the thread was never to "prove" anything, I stated that in the opening.
Lastly, why are you applying human logic to a possible intelligent designer? I will honestly admit, I don't believe a human was the intelligent designer, so human logic about its existence would simply not apply. From a scientific standpoint, the inability to answer an advancing question, does not nullify the original premise, nor should it be a factor in determining the validity of the original question.
 
Solitary said:
A couple of points you made need to be corrected, Dixie.

#1 - The failure of Darwin's theory to explain the origins of life

Darwin's theory never attempted to explain the origins of life. His theories (for they are actually several separate theories) have never addressed the origins of life at all. You might try reading his theories before attacking them.

I never said that Darwin's theory attempted to explain origin of life, that is what Atehist "scientists" claim. You are absolutely correct, it doesn't attempt to explain origin, it doesn't even adequately explain the origin of our species, which was the title of the book in which the theory was first espoused. And I have read his theories.

#2 - Natural Selection is Intelligent design

Nothing could be further from the truth. Natural Selection does not involve any diety or intelligent design. It simply states that an animal that is better able to survive and multiply will eventually replace animals that are less able to survive and multiply.

Again, I never said NS involves a diety, I never even claimed a "diety" was the intelligent designer, I have no idea about that. What I pointed out was, the theory of NS supports intelligent design through the observation of human behavior. The attribute of human worship is a naturally selected behavior, and according to the theory, humans must have been better able to survive and multiply by exhibiting this behavior. I will add, this only applies if the theory is actually valid, which we do not know and can not prove.


#3 - Patterns are not random.

This idea that certain biological systems could not have evolved due to their complex and interconnected nature is simply false. Most often, the Intelligent Design proponents point to the human eye. They claim it is so complex, and relies on all its parts to function. This can only be valid if you ignore the myriad of examples of simpler and less complex "eyes" in the animal world. From the eye spots on planeria (which are only light sensitive) to our eyes, there are a multitude of steps that are simpler and still function.

Nope, sorry, but you are wrong. The human eye is nothing remotely similar to the eye spots on planeria, they function in completely different ways. Originally, evolutionists believed the human eye evolved from a simpler state, as you mentioned, but advanced science and technology has disproved that theory. The human eye has numerous components, which are dependent upon each other for the eye to function. None of the components of the human eye ever functioned as the eye of planeria. It is equivalent to trying to claim plastic bannanas come from banana trees made of plastic.

#4 - The Moon

Your suggestion that the seasons (provided by the moon) allow plant life, and without the seasons there would be no plant life is patently ridiculous. There are no seasons at the equator. And yet, the plant and animal life is more abundant there than anywhere else on the planet. South Florida has very little seasonal change, and yet the undeveloped landscape is a veritable jungle.

Every plant we've ever studied is dependent upon a growth cycle, which is tied to the seasons. Granted, there are places on the planet in which the seasonal change is very slight, however it is enough for the plants to know when to produce pollen, when to bloom, and when to generate seed.

#5 - Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Carbon

Your supposition here only works if you accept that life came about BECAUSE of the elements. The other side of the coin is that life came about and made use of the common elements available. But again, you are discussing the origins of life, not the theory of evolution.

Well, as I said, we don't know everything, we are ignorant in the eyes of the universe, and there is vastly more that we don't know, than what we do know. That being said, one thing we have determined, life's building blocks are Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Carbon, and without them, life does not exist anywhere in the universe we know.
Click to expand...


my reply in bold
 
Oh boy. Too much good pickins here.

"I will add, this only applies if the theory is actually valid, which we do not know and can not prove."

First of all, natural selection? Yeah. Pretty much proven. Even rattlesnakes are starting to loose their ability to rattle because of over hunting - the loud ones die at a higher rate. Bacteria, in fact, pretty much all of medical science.

The missing dollar. Now that proves God. But this evolution thing you're doin is just embarrassing to yourself and the human race.
 
"Nope, sorry, but you are wrong. The human eye is nothing remotely similar to the eye spots on planeria, they function in completely different ways. Originally, evolutionists believed the human eye evolved from a simpler state, as you mentioned, but advanced science and technology has disproved that theory. The human eye has numerous components, which are dependent upon each other for the eye to function. None of the components of the human eye ever functioned as the eye of planeria. It is equivalent to trying to claim plastic bannanas come from banana trees made of plastic. "

This explains the human eye thing pretty well:
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
First of all, who said the intelligent designer was a "being?"
Click to expand...

First of all, whoever said this "mattered"?

Dixie said:
Secondly, of course there is no evidence to prove it, if there were, we wouldn't be debating it, we would know for certain because it could be proven. The purpose of the thread was never to "prove" anything, I stated that in the opening.
Click to expand...

There are many things that there is evidence for that people still argue about. The fact that there is evidence for them brings them into the arguing arena. There is no evidence to God, therefore there's no point in arguing for the delusion.

Dixie said:
Lastly, why are you applying human logic to a possible intelligent designer? I will honestly admit, I don't believe a human was the intelligent designer, so human logic about its existence would simply not apply. From a scientific standpoint, the inability to answer an advancing question, does not nullify the original premise, nor should it be a factor in determining the validity of the original question.
Click to expand...

Of course, I cannot apply logic to it, so you win automatically. Nice going. Freud was right whenever he said that all men did everything they ever did because they wanted to fuck their mother too, because it's so difficult to accurately disprove it using logic.

You must think higher!
 
Every plant we've ever studied is dependent upon a growth cycle, which is tied to the seasons. Granted, there are places on the planet in which the seasonal change is very slight, however it is enough for the plants to know when to produce pollen, when to bloom, and when to generate seed.
Click to expand...

They don't experience seasons. Ever thought that possibly plants could have evolved that didn't require seasons?

OH NOZER IMADE DIXIES HEAD EXPLODE!
 
"One of the most obvious facts is the failure of Darwin's Theory to adequately explain origin of life."

Dixie, that is a quote from your original post. It is not a failure of Darwin's theory if his theory never addressed the issue.


Your dancing around the diety issue is funny, but self-defeating. In order for intelligent design to BE intelligent design, something intelligent would have had to design it. Whether this intelligence was a diety, an alien, or a human is beside the point. And considering that this entire thread was started about an offers to "prove god's existence", it seems to make no sense if you are not supporting the idea that a god provided the intelligent design.


As for the plant, there are numerous plants that need to seasonal change. The ones at the equator do not have seasonal changes. They have a constant amount of sunlight and a constant temperature with no seasonal changes.


I never said the human eye and the planeria eye spots were similar. However, you can find similarities between the planera eyespot and other animal eyes, and similarities between those eyes and more developed eyes and so on and so on......until you find similarities between our eyes and eyes of other animals. There is no direct link between us and the planeria, but then according to Darwin, there wouldn't be.
 
3. Human Behavioral Psychology
As much a "science" as biology or chemistry, the study of animal behavior subscribes to the same scientific methods and principles of other sciences, and it is here that we find the most compelling evidence for intelligent design. We know and understand, by repeated studies and observations of all kinds of animals and life forms in general, they all display behavior for a reason. Nothing behaves in any way that is without purpose or reason. It may take us time to determine the reason, and it may sometimes appear there is no logical reason, but science can always conclude and rely on this to be the case. That being said, humans have always exhibited the behavior of worship. From the most ancient civilizations we've discovered, we find evidence of some kind of spiritual ritual. Through centuries of wars and oppression, mankind has held fast to the behavior of worship. We know for a fact, any animal exhibiting a routine behavior, has a fundamental purpose for that behavior, therefore, we must conclude there is fundamental purpose for human worship and spirituality.
Click to expand...

Human behavior is often so irrational because it is designed to cope with a world in which we are beasts wandering wildernesses and not the modern world. War, for instance, is an absolutely irrational impulse that only morons still succumb to.

A lot of culture have had belief systems, but its important to note that none of these have ever been as fanatical as the Christian-Jewish-Muslim trio. In those faiths, its treason not to believe. Most other faiths were more sort of elaborate fairy tails that people sort of believed in, but not really. It's really important to absolutely distinguish the difference between the two completely different kinds of faiths.
 
Solitary said:
"One of the most obvious facts is the failure of Darwin's Theory to adequately explain origin of life."

Dixie, that is a quote from your original post. It is not a failure of Darwin's theory if his theory never addressed the issue.

If it did not address it, then it is clear to me it failed to explain it. That's what I said, and my statement is correct, thanks for confirming it.


Your dancing around the diety issue is funny, but self-defeating. In order for intelligent design to BE intelligent design, something intelligent would have had to design it. Whether this intelligence was a diety, an alien, or a human is beside the point. And considering that this entire thread was started about an offers to "prove god's existence", it seems to make no sense if you are not supporting the idea that a god provided the intelligent design.

Not dancing, just pointing out that I never brought up "deities" or the possibility the intelligent designer was a Deity. I don't know that the intelligence was a "some thing" either, I never claimed to know this. The thread was not started about an offer to prove god's existence, that is the title of the thread because it illustrates the absurdity of Atheist "scientists" who think they understand how life originated without intelligent design.

As for the plant, there are numerous plants that need to seasonal change. The ones at the equator do not have seasonal changes. They have a constant amount of sunlight and a constant temperature with no seasonal changes.

The plants at the equator also need season changes, as well as daytime and night time, all tied to the orbital rotation of the Earth on it's axis. At the equator, there is less of a change between seasons. This doesn't mean there are no seasons at the equator. The humanly discernible difference in the seasons is not as apparent at the equator, is that what you mean? Because the laws of physics dictate the equator moves with the rest of the planet. There is no place on Earth where conditions are constant all the time.

I never said the human eye and the planaria eye spots were similar. However, you can find similarities between the planaria eyespot and other animal eyes, and similarities between those eyes and more developed eyes and so on and so on......until you find similarities between our eyes and eyes of other animals. There is no direct link between us and the planeria, but then according to Darwin, there wouldn't be.

You fail to comprehend what science has already discovered. The human eye functions in a way completely different from planaria eyes. There is no "more developed" eye, the planaria eye is not underdeveloped, or a primitive form of human eye, they function in a different way than the human eye, they rely on different circumstances to produce "sight" and there is no similarity in the function whatsoever. It's as if you are theorizing that plants evolved into 'more developed' living things and became mammals, there is no basis for such a prediction in science. Now, what you are arguing is what evolution scientists believed for many years, until advanced technology studied the eye of planaria and discovered it functions in a way completely different than the human eye. There is no logical way to get from one to the other, since none of the function is the same.
Click to expand...


my response in bold
 
Watermark said:
Human behavior is often so irrational because it is designed to cope with a world in which we are beasts wandering wildernesses and not the modern world. War, for instance, is an absolutely irrational impulse that only morons still succumb to.

A lot of culture have had belief systems, but its important to note that none of these have ever been as fanatical as the Christian-Jewish-Muslim trio. In those faiths, its treason not to believe. Most other faiths were more sort of elaborate fairy tails that people sort of believed in, but not really. It's really important to absolutely distinguish the difference between the two completely different kinds of faiths.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you said human behavior is "designed" ...did you realize that?
Thanks for confirming intelligent design, I really didn't expect you to be the one to do that, but it's good to know you have come to your senses.

You can take this opportunity to bash religion if you like, my argument is not supportive of religious belief, just the exhibited human behavior of spirituality, which has been associated with mankind for as long as we have a history of mankind. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions about this behavior, or why we have it, but remember Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, as it dictates the behavior must have been needed for survival of the species.
 
You are amazing. The fact that Darwin's Theory never addressed the origins of life means that he did not address it. It is not a failure in any way. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origins of life at all. Your claim is the equivilent of claiming that McCain has lost the Democratic Party nomination.


I am not talking about whether humans can discern the differences at the equator. I am talking about scientific measurements that show the same temperature range year round, and the same amount of average sunlight. The wobble that causes seasons at the north and south hemispheres causes no change at the equator. The equator is the same distance from the sun, while the northern and southern hemispheres "wobble" closer & farther from the sun. Your own theory does not hold water.


Yes, the human eye and the planeria eye function in different ways, and yet they do have certain similarities. But you miss my point, its not the similarity between the human eye and the planeria eyespots. There are degrees of similarity between the planeria and other lower life form's eyes. And there are similarities between these animal's eyes and the next level up. It is this chain that I was talking about. You want to take a single example, and yet the evidence is in the whole picture.


Your "intelligent designer" idea is as far from scientific as one can get. You have absolutely no evidence of any designer, and yet your entire theory rests upon this designer.
 
Dixie said:
Hmmm, you said human behavior is "designed" ...did you realize that?
Thanks for confirming intelligent design, I really didn't expect you to be the one to do that, but it's good to know you have come to your senses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming that evolution is an intelligent way to design things.
 
Watermark said:
They don't experience seasons. Ever thought that possibly plants could have evolved that didn't require seasons?

OH NOZER IMADE DIXIES HEAD EXPLODE!
Click to expand...

Since plant life does not have a brain and can not think, it relies on nature to tell it when to grow, when to produce pollen, when to bloom, and when to produce seed for the next generation of plants. If nature were constant and never changed, plants would have no way of knowing when to do these things. We routinely grow plants in artificial environments, and we can alter or change the artificial conditions to trick the plant into doing what we want it to do, whether it is to pollinate and reproduce more plants, or to bloom or produce fruit in more abundant amounts. Some plants are more versatile and resilient to change, and can grow in a wide range of conditions, while others are extremely sensitive to nature, certain flowers will only bloom on a certain day of the year, how do they know? ...They don't own calendars. I suppose we could speculate that plants could have developed brains during the evolution process, but brains require a different physical composition and functional system.
 
We have grown plants in artificial conditions which did not vary. This disproves your entire "without the moon we would have not plant life" idea.

It was as ridiculous as your idea that all sea life requires the tides in order to live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top