Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Peebothuhlu]

 

Okay.

Do you think that there ever was or has been a global flood, M4X?

Not at work.

I think there was extreme flooding that covered mountains and hills.  This is consistent with what we see in the fossil records, including fossils from aquatic species found in modern day mountains and hills.  Can show you photos if you would like, but it will have to be later on because ZZZZZzzzzzz time.

What do you think about flooding?  To what extent has the earth been flooded in the past, especially in regard to the "Bronze Age" as you mentioned earlier?

So... do you thik there was a global flood, M4X?

Not 'Extreme'. A flood as described in certain holy texts.

Not at work.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1876581' dateline='1547295570']

Theists are the ones that invoke magic and give no method or evidence to back up their assertion that it must have been not only some sort of god, but the one that hates gays and, for some reason, eating bacon.

More rational people tend to think it must have been a natural event of some kind, rather than some hyper improbable magic man that not only has no proof of its existence but has zero explanatory power.

So you make generalizations about people and then assert you are rational?

Well you are saying that a magic thing that exists outside of space and time but is somehow super smart somehow created everything and is the same super intelligent being that 13 billion years later told people not to have tattoos and keep your women folk in separate buildings until they finished having periods.

Whereas we think that it sounds unconvincing and the universe was probably caused by something else.

So if you don't want me to think you are irrational it would probably be better to not say irrational things.

Don't have the words to describe your typical statements and various other banter, so I'll go with a photo to illustrate.

Lots of things were "written in stone" according to your favourite fiction. The ten commandments for one.

Beyond that I really don't understand your point.
But then you are getting notorious for not really explaining things even when asked multiple times to explain. Its Brexit means Brexit all over again.

[polymath257]

No, once again it is NOT a guess. The observations fit the theoretical predictions. We have fairly details observations of several stages of the process. The only reason you reject this is because of your pre-conceived religious ideas.

I do not have any pre-conceived religious ideas. I have a brain and a college education, and you are still pretending that explains why and how it is happening. It does NOT.

Except that the theory and the observations agree. We see the process happening today. We can apply the known laws of gravity to what we see and the results agree with what we see. And that is star formation.

How is that *not* an explanation? A large cloud of gas and dust collapses locally due to gravity, leading to the heating of said cloud and eventually the start of nuclear reactions. Gravity tends to pull things into spheres. And a spherical ball of gas that has nuclear reactions in its center is a star.

Again, there always has to be *something* that is uncaused. For you, it is some deity. For me, it is the universe itself and the laws of physics. No intelligent creator is required or even suggested by the observations we have.

It is not "some deity", it is an intelligent and self-aware force with enough knowledge to bring about LIFE ITSELF and an amazing and beautiful planet. "The Universe itself" does not mean anything. It is flat nothingness and has no capabilitles of accomplishing anything. It is nonsensical to think "nothing" can create all this. Ridiculous beyond belief.

Exactly: some deity. yes, the universe has properties: it has matter, space, time, energy, etc. The matter and energy obey physical laws. Those physical laws determine the types and characteristics of chemistry. And life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions.

As to this planet, it is a fairly small planet, that is one among thousands we have already found. We don't know if life exists elsewhere, but the bet its that it does because the same processes that happened here should happens other places to get life started.

No, the universe from nothing is NOT pseudoscience. it is based on known scientific law and has many testable predictions. At this point, those predictions have not yet been tested, but the proposal is still scientific.

It is based on nothing but some made up unproven guesses craftily thrown together in order to sell lots of books and make lots of money off the unknowing masses. It is despicable abuse of the field of scientiific inquiry.[/quote]

Again wrong. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are quite far from being just guesses. And if you think the primary goal is to sell books, you don't know a single thing about how science works. The amount of money made is trivial.

---

No, once again it is NOT a guess. The observations fit the theoretical predictions. We have fairly details observations of several stages of the process. The only reason you reject this is because of your pre-conceived religious ideas.

Again, there always has to be *something* that is uncaused. For you, it is some deity. For me, it is the universe itself and the laws of physics. No intelligent creator is required or even suggested by the observations we have.

No, the universe from nothing is NOT pseudoscience. it is based on known scientific law and has many testable predictions. At this point, those predictions have not yet been tested, but the proposal is still scientific.

- Bad guess.  Observations didn't fit and still don't.
- No observations prove otherwise
- Yep, pseudoscience.   No laws or testable predictions have been able to lead to such a conclusion.  Also, if the testable predictions haven't been tested, then how can they account for anything?  A proposal doesn't prove something, but rather details how you might test it.

Really? Which observations, specifically? How do the observations of, say, the EGGs in the Eagle nebula conflict with the predictions of the theory?

As to causlaity, observations actually show that causality doesn't always apply. That is one of the big lessons of quantum mechanics.

The theory is testable, but has not yet been tested. That makes it scientific but not proven.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is based on nothing but some made up unproven guesses craftily thrown together in order to sell lots of books

Fair point. We all know that physicists write popular books on quantum mechanics to get filthy, stinking rich.  John Grisham?  Stephen King?  Paupers compared to the likes of J.J. Sakurai and Manjit Kumar.

Boru

[Rahn127]

Angelina - Why does a star form ? It forms because the force of gravity exists and matter exists.

Then you might ask "Why does gravity exist ?"
I don't know why it exists, but I do know that we have evidence of it's existence.
I also know that if it didn't exist, more than likely, I wouldn't exist to be able to ask the question.

How does a star form ? The answer is gravity acting upon small particles of matter, gathering them together in one place.
As more matter gathers together, gravity increases, until all that matter gets really really dense and hot and then fun stuff happens and BOOM, it gives off light.

The universe exists. Why ? Because the forces of nature exist.
Why do they exist ? I don't know why, but if they didn't exist, I probably wouldn't exist.

The forces of nature are the base. They exist. We have evidence of their existence.

What we don't have evidence for, is a god, any god. Zip, nada, nothing.

Maybe you missed this reply Angelina, so I'll reply to my own post in hopes you might see it.

We have evidence for the forces of nature that exist.
What evidence do you have for the existence of a god ?

I asked this question at the very beginning of this thread.
That was 111 pages ago

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I think there was extreme flooding that covered mountains and hills.  This is consistent with what we see in the fossil records, including fossils from aquatic species found in modern day mountains and hills.  Can show you photos if you would like, but it will have to be later on because ZZZZZzzzzzz time.

What do you think about flooding?  To what extent has the earth been flooded in the past, especially in regard to the "Bronze Age" as you mentioned earlier?

That's actually not how aquatic fossils get to mountaintops. It's more of a techntonicy-upthrusty thing.

Boru

Ummm, nope.  Fossilization is almost always a result of flooding.  Fossilization is actually a rarity nowadays.  If you see an animal hit by a car on, or alongside, a road it will just decompose over time.  Now if a road is rapidly flooded and there was an animal there, the chances will be increased of that animal being fossilized since it can rapidly bury that animal as well as cut off oxygen from reaching the corpse.  Over time that sediment it's locked away in with replicate it by exchanging molecules with it so that you have a fossil.

---

I think there was extreme flooding that covered mountains and hills.  This is consistent with what we see in the fossil records, including fossils from aquatic species found in modern day mountains and hills.  Can show you photos if you would like, but it will have to be later on because ZZZZZzzzzzz time.

What do you think about flooding?  To what extent has the earth been flooded in the past, especially in regard to the "Bronze Age" as you mentioned earlier?

So... do you thik there was a global flood, M4X?

Not 'Extreme'. A flood as described in certain holy texts.

Not at work.

I said "extreme flooding" including over mountains and hills.  That's my position on it.  Why do you keep insisting that I say something you want me to say?  I already answered your question 3-4 different ways now with the same answer.  What do you think about said flooding during the "Bronze Age" as you stated?

[vulcanlogician]

Fossilization is almost always a result of flooding.  Fossilization is actually a rarity nowadays.  If you see an animal hit by a car on, or alongside, a road it will just decompose over time.  Now if a road is rapidly flooded and there was an animal there, the chances will be increased of that animal being fossilized since it can rapidly bury that animal as well as cut off oxygen from reaching the corpse.  Over time that sediment it's locked away in with replicate it by exchanging molecules with it so that you have a fossil.

Citation please?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I do not have any pre-conceived religious ideas. I have a brain and a college education, and you are still pretending that explains why and how it is happening. It does NOT.

Except that the theory and the observations agree. We see the process happening today. We can apply the known laws of gravity to what we see and the results agree with what we see. And that is star formation.

How is that *not* an explanation? A large cloud of gas and dust collapses locally due to gravity, leading to the heating of said cloud and eventually the start of nuclear reactions. Gravity tends to pull things into spheres. And a spherical ball of gas that has nuclear reactions in its center is a star.

It is not "some deity", it is an intelligent and self-aware force with enough knowledge to bring about LIFE ITSELF and an amazing and beautiful planet. "The Universe itself" does not mean anything. It is flat nothingness and has no capabilitles of accomplishing anything. It is nonsensical to think "nothing" can create all this. Ridiculous beyond belief.

Exactly: some deity. yes, the universe has properties: it has matter, space, time, energy, etc. The matter and energy obey physical laws. Those physical laws determine the types and characteristics of chemistry. And life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions.

As to this planet, it is a fairly small planet, that is one among thousands we have already found. We don't know if life exists elsewhere, but the bet its that it does because the same processes that happened here should happens other places to get life started.

No, the universe from nothing is NOT pseudoscience. it is based on known scientific law and has many testable predictions. At this point, those predictions have not yet been tested, but the proposal is still scientific.

It is based on nothing but some made up unproven guesses craftily thrown together in order to sell lots of books and make lots of money off the unknowing masses. It is despicable abuse of the field of scientiific inquiry.

Again wrong. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are quite far from being just guesses. And if you think the primary goal is to sell books, you don't know a single thing about how science works. The amount of money made is trivial.

---

- Bad guess.  Observations didn't fit and still don't.
- No observations prove otherwise
- Yep, pseudoscience.   No laws or testable predictions have been able to lead to such a conclusion.  Also, if the testable predictions haven't been tested, then how can they account for anything?  A proposal doesn't prove something, but rather details how you might test it.

Really? Which observations, specifically? How do the observations of, say, the EGGs in the Eagle nebula conflict with the predictions of the theory?

As to causlaity, observations actually show that causality doesn't always apply. That is one of the big lessons of quantum mechanics.

The theory is testable, but has not yet been tested. That makes it scientific but not proven.
[/quote]

- What part of it suggested EGGs?  If one has nothing directly to do with the other, then why assume a special relationship between it and what you claim happened billions of years ago? 

- Agreed, but was already stated.  You can set up a test and do it scientifically, but until you actually do the test, that's all it is, test parameters established scientifically.  It doesn't conclude the relationship of the variables until it's actually conducted.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's actually not how aquatic fossils get to mountaintops. It's more of a techntonicy-upthrusty thing.

Boru

Ummm, nope.  Fossilization is almost always a result of flooding.  Fossilization is actually a rarity nowadays.  If you see an animal hit by a car on, or alongside, a road it will just decompose over time.  Now if a road is rapidly flooded and there was an animal there, the chances will be increased of that animal being fossilized since it can rapidly bury that animal as well as cut off oxygen from reaching the corpse.  Over time that sediment it's locked away in with replicate it by exchanging molecules with it so that you have a fossil.

---

OK, almost everything about that is either wrong or misleading (note that I said 'almost', so you're getting better).

  Fossilization is almost never a result of flooding.  Over 95% of the fossils we've collected are aquatic - from swamps or shallow seas. The key to becoming a fossil is to die in the right place.

  There is no information that I'm aware of that fossilization rates have changed over time (if you can source it, I'll happily accept the correction_ - it's always been a rarity.  Estimates from people who know much more about this than you or I are that only about 1 in a billion bones have ever been fossilized.

And yes, the fossils, even on very high mountains are from low-lying areas.  They weren't fossilized on the mountain, or carried there by floodwaters. They were pushed up right along with the mountains.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Fossilization is almost always a result of flooding.  Fossilization is actually a rarity nowadays.  If you see an animal hit by a car on, or alongside, a road it will just decompose over time.  Now if a road is rapidly flooded and there was an animal there, the chances will be increased of that animal being fossilized since it can rapidly bury that animal as well as cut off oxygen from reaching the corpse.  Over time that sediment it's locked away in with replicate it by exchanging molecules with it so that you have a fossil.

Citation please?

Sure.  That was my explanation of it off the top of my head, so I didn't use a source for it, but here an explanation from Science Views that states pretty much the same thing.  Here is a quote from it, but there are a few more paragraphs in the actual work.

"Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism. "