It depends exactly what you're trying to prove.

If it's the god from the Bible then the Bible has to be shown to be an accurate account, by Archaeological standards. - It fails spectacularly on this point...

If you're trying to prove the 'Creator of the Universe' I want details on how that was achieved, and we're talking Quantum Mechanics here, none of that emotional hot air non-sense.

(August 25, 2015 at 3:56 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 11:00 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The Cambrian explosion is scientific evidence for God.

Um. No. Even if the Cambrian explosion disproved evolution (which it doesn't), it has ZERO bearing on atheism or religion. To assert that therefore creationism, and your particular CHRISTIAN  creationism at that must be true is a ridiculous false dichotomy. But I guess it has to be since you don't have anything to support your 'theory', so the only way of it gaining any kind of validity in your mind is disproving evolution....But it doesn't work like that. If evolution were false, creationism could still be false.

Not to mention....WHICH god? And how do you come to that conclusion? -_-

 It’s a matter of comparing the naturalistic model to the creation model and choosing the one that best fits the observable data from all the sciences. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a policy statement that implicitly and strictly adheres to a materialistic understanding of the nature of science. So scientists accepted a self-imposed limitation to the hypothesis they are willing to accept. Hence, all their conclusion must adder to the principle of methodological materialism including origin of the universe, and life or phenomena such as human consciousness. To publish or secure grants that have the AAAS policy or similar (Nature, Nova, Smithsonian, public and most private universities, etc), the researchers must exclude by policy any creation model evidence. Nothing wrong with AAAS institutions setting rules for their members (policy statement, not a conspiracy); however, the problem is that they have excluded conclusion before the research even begins (as stated by Richard Lewontin American evolutionary biologist ‘…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door‘)*; and that most readers don’t know of this a priori restrictive policy. Some researcher even are convinced of the creation model, but will of course interpret the finding naturalistically. Therefore, most of the ‘science’ this board’s posters are so enameled with is really pre-loaded ’science’. In the case of evolution, big gapping holes in the theory is explained by an appeal to future discoveries, but real science is based on what is known not what is not known.
　
* https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

snowtracks Wrote: It’s a matter of comparing the naturalistic model to the creation model and choosing the one that best fits the observable data from all the sciences. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a policy statement that implicitly and strictly adheres to a materialistic understanding of the nature of science. So scientists accepted a self-imposed limitation to the hypothesis they are willing to accept. Hence, all their conclusion must adder to the principle of methodological materialism including origin of the universe, and life or phenomena such as human consciousness. To publish or secure grants that have the AAAS policy or similar (Nature, Nova, Smithsonian, public and most private universities, etc), the researchers must exclude by policy any creation model evidence. Nothing wrong with AAAS institutions setting rules for their members (policy statement, not a conspiracy); however, the problem is that they have excluded conclusion before the research even begins (as stated by Richard Lewontin American evolutionary biologist ‘…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door‘)*; and that most readers don’t know of this a priori restrictive policy. Some researcher even are convinced of the creation model, but will of course interpret the finding naturalistically. Therefore, most of the ‘science’ this board’s posters are so enameled with is really pre-loaded ’science’. In the case of evolution, big gapping holes in the theory is explained by an appeal to future discoveries, but real science is based on what is known not what is not known.
　
* https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

You must be joking. Please tell me you don't really think this. Yes, science discounts "magic" as an explanation, since that has done us pretty well in explaining things so far, such as our AMAZING discovery that the sun is not Apollo's magic chariot that rides across the sky each night.

I am a former biologist, and my fiancee, a Christian (by the way), works in a genetics lab and has no issues with the Theory of Evolution. None. There are no researchers, Christian or Atheist, of any serious capacity who are "convinced of the creation model", not the least reason being that there is no "creation model", other than to read the Bible. Evolution has so much solid evidence that a lifetime of study would not be enough to learn all of it; biologists spend entire lifetimes just nailing down some of its aspects and focusing on sub-regions, but a general overview is simple enough that everyone should be able to grasp it. For instance: we know how DNA is inherited. We know. We use particular loci (markers) to trace heritage for paternity testing, and to convict (or exonerate) people in courts of law. There are literally hundreds of things we know are in our DNA that can only be explained (and fairly simply) via common ancestry with other great apes, such as transpositional elements and endogenous retrovirus "scars". It's not a scientific conspiracy; science encourages genuine dissent, and a scientist can win great fame by disproving a well-accepted model/theory. If I was able to disprove evolutionary theory, by clear and convincing evidence, I would collect my Nobel Prize next year. The problem is that they [Creationists] do not have evidence at all, they have misrepresentations of what science actually claims (straw men) that they tear down before credulous people who don't know the difference, and those people then think there are two sides of a debate.

People like the liars at the Creation Institute (now called the Discovery Institute to hide its intent) who try to portray a "controversy" on the issue, but there really is none... you can check this fact for yourself, by looking at the "list of scientists who doubt evolution" that they released in 2005 and seeing that almost literally every person on that list is either not a biologist/biochemist (who would be in a postition to know the difference), or disavows their appearance on the list and acknowledges both evolution and common descent.

Don Exodus on YouTube already proved it is a lie, and you don't have to believe me on that. You can see for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

The Creation/Discovery Institute does this because they believe that if they can muddy the waters enough, then it's a net win for Christianity (their version), a tactic they admitted to when they published the "Wedge Document", which they later took down as they began their quest to appear more legitimate, but which the good folks at the National Center for Science Education preserved for us:
http://http://ncse.com/creationism/gener...e-document

As for the original question, it would have been fairly simple for the Deity whom they claim "inspired" the writers of the Bible to tell those writers something that a sheepherder people in the Ancient Near East would not have known on their own, such as for instance genetic inheritance (which Genesis gets totally wrong in chapter 30, mistakenly describing something we call "Lamarckian inheritance", a debunked hypothesis of how species adapt to their environments), or Germ Theory, or Atomic Theory... or even the Heliocentric model of the solar system (though to me, that wouldn't prove God so much as its absence seems to indicate a lack of divine inspiration).

The "divinely inspired" writers of Genesis got everything wrong that we would expect humans of the Ancient Near East to get wrong, based on their time and culture, just as the "divinely inspired" authors of the Qur'an and the Enûma Elish got things wrong according to their cultures. You reject those stories as human-crafted nonsense the same way the rest of us reject yours.

"I am a former biologist, and my fiancee, a Christian (by the way), works in a genetics lab and has no issues with the Theory of Evolution." - What the heck, another one wants to tell me about their girlfriend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People like the liars at the Creation Institute (now called the Discovery Institute to hide its intent)". Didn't post about this institute or for that matter about DNA; but thanks for reminding me that DNA gets past-down to offspring.

I feel that actually witnessing a miracle firsthand would make me reconsider the possibility of the existence of a god. A miracle, to my understanding is not an occurrence that is just highly improbable or statistically unlikely. Another person's account of of a divine experience or miraculous event, is not something I would be able to consider.
If I were to witness something truly impossible happen with my own to eyes, I would be likely to consider there could be a force or forces operating outside  the laws of physics, nature, etc.

(September 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I feel that actually witnessing a miracle firsthand would make me reconsider the possibility of the existence of a god. A miracle, to my understanding is not an occurrence that is just highly improbable or statistically unlikely. Another person's account of of a divine experience or miraculous event, is not something I would be able to consider.
If I were to witness something truly impossible happen with my own to eyes, I would be likely to consider there could be a force or forces operating outside  the laws of physics, nature, etc.

But then how would you know it's truly a miracle (as in impossible within the laws of physics) rather than just extremely improbable?

(September 7, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(September 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I feel that actually witnessing a miracle firsthand would make me reconsider the possibility of the existence of a god. A miracle, to my understanding is not an occurrence that is just highly improbable or statistically unlikely. Another person's account of of a divine experience or miraculous event, is not something I would be able to consider.
If I were to witness something truly impossible happen with my own to eyes, I would be likely to consider there could be a force or forces operating outside  the laws of physics, nature, etc.

But then how would you know it's truly a miracle (as in impossible within the laws of physics) rather than just extremely improbable?

I considered that as I was writing the post. The answer is I don't know. I guess it would have to be a pretty impressive fuggin' miracle.

Correction: Extremely improbable wouldn't do it for me. What I considered was how would I know that hypothetical miracle wouldn't just be something that science has yet to explain, but still operates within the laws of physics and nature. Oops!

(September 7, 2015 at 10:37 pm)snowtracks Wrote: "I am a former biologist, and my fiancee, a Christian (by the way), works in a genetics lab and has no issues with the Theory of Evolution." - What the heck, another one wants to tell me about their girlfriend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People like the liars at the Creation Institute (now called the Discovery Institute to hide its intent)". Didn't post about this institute or for that matter about DNA; but thanks for reminding me that DNA gets past-down to offspring.

Wheaton's Law is an internet axiom which states: "Don’t be a dick."

You didn't post about the Creation/Discovery Institute, but I did, because your assertions were right out of the C/DI playbook. And I showed you that their playbook is the result of a lot of willingness to Lie for God™. Pretending that your text isn't right out of their Creationism playbook is disingenuous.

Lying for God is still lying.

I pointed out that DNA gets handed down to offspring because how it happens is critically important to our understanding of how evolution happens. I pointed out my Christian fiancee by way of explaining that there's not an "atheistic conspiracy of materialism/philosophical naturalism", and that there are many Christians who are real scientists... but not one of them is, quote, "convinced of the Creation model".

Both the quotations, to which you objected with sneering sarcasm rather than addressing, were relevant and on-point.

(September 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I feel that actually witnessing a miracle firsthand would make me reconsider the possibility of the existence of a god. A miracle, to my understanding is not an occurrence that is just highly improbable or statistically unlikely. Another person's account of of a divine experience or miraculous event, is not something I would be able to consider.
If I were to witness something truly impossible happen with my own to eyes, I would be likely to consider there could be a force or forces operating outside  the laws of physics, nature, etc.

The problem is that if you witness something, and it really happened rather than being a hallucination or whatever, then it isn't impossible It just runs contrary to what we thought was possible.

(September 8, 2015 at 1:07 am)robvalue Wrote:

(September 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I feel that actually witnessing a miracle firsthand would make me reconsider the possibility of the existence of a god. A miracle, to my understanding is not an occurrence that is just highly improbable or statistically unlikely. Another person's account of of a divine experience or miraculous event, is not something I would be able to consider.
If I were to witness something truly impossible happen with my own to eyes, I would be likely to consider there could be a force or forces operating outside  the laws of physics, nature, etc.

The problem is that if you witness something, and it really happened rather than being a hallucination or whatever, then it isn't impossible It just runs contrary to what we thought was possible.

Right. Including a god, perhaps.

I don't have a belief in the existence God, because I don't believe it's possible.
If I were to witness the truly impossible, become possible, it stands to reason that the experience would challenge me to question the very idea what's possible in general. Possibly.