Is God invented?

You: Uhh.. Err… because the bible said so…

Completely wrong. Therefore your conclusion must be changed.

“The study of fossils and mutations ranks as the two key evidences of evolution: The fossil evidence proves or disproves whether evolution has occurred in the past; mutational facts prove or disprove whether it can occur at all.” (#3/25 The Experts Speak)

Studies have show that there are no beneficial mutations and that mutations are always bad. Thus evolution is not possible at all. It therefore is a dumb idea searching for fossils.

The lowest strata level is called the Cambrian.Below this lowest of the fossil-bearing strata lies the Precambrian. Invertebrate (non-backbone) animals, such as trilobites and brachiopods, which are complex little animals are found in this stratum. In addition, many of our modern animals and plants are in this level. How could such complex, multicelled creatures be there in the bottom of the Cambrian strata? But there they are. Suddenly, in the very lowest fossil stratum, we find complex plants and animals—and lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything lower.

“It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, generation and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”—George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

Now how are the rocks strata dated? By something called the index. In each stratum there are a few fossils which are not observed as often in the other strata. These are the fossils which are used to “date” that stratum and all the other fossils within it! And how are the fossils dated? By Darwin’s theory that says those organisms should have existed in a certain period.

Me: Therefore evolution cannot be true.

Me: The Conclusion is that since life did not come about thorough evolution there has to be some who designed it.

“Studies have show that there are no beneficial mutations and that mutations are always bad.”

Really? Which studies? Cite them, please.

Besides, this claim is obviously false on at least two levels:

• If a mutation can happen in a way that makes things worse, then plainly the reverse mutation is also possible. It may not be equally possible, but it need not be if it enhances survival. Concretely, if changing a particular base from ‘C’ to ‘T’ degrades my ability to, say, create insulin effectively, then the reverse mutation must also be possible, and would improve the ability of a creature without it to create insulin.
• It’s been proven false in the lab. In a long term experiment, Dr Richard Lenski caused a colony of E Coli bacteria to evolve the capability to consume Citrate as a food source entirely from scratch: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

Hi Eternallife,

Who wants to keep God out?! Personally, I would love to have a pair of cosy divine apron-strings to hold on to. But so far, hhhmmm, not likely to be reality… no one seem to have a good idea as to where to find evidence for this magic wonder being… So NO… I do not believe in the existence of YOUR god or any other people’s one… Bad luck for you…!

Oh.. about ‘scientific observation’…; imagine a detective entering a room. there is a dead body that is covered in blood. A big knife (also covered in blood) lies next to the body. In the next room is an open (and empty) safe. Footprints (made with blood) lead to a broken window…

In order to understand what has happened to the unfortunate corps, would it have been necessary for the detective to have been in the room at the time that the dead person died, Eternallife?! Or… could he come to a realistic and rational (provisional) conclusion as a result of observation and (scientific) verification?

Your arguments do not hold water. And… you are not the first creationist who used them. Many of your fellow faithful have given up these arguments because they eventually work against their principle aim. Advertising ignorance is not a useful quality…

Allow me to make an insignificant prediction on the basis of probability (thus, on the basis of previous observation). Your next step might be to willfully tell a lie… (for God’s sake)…

“The point is that if my claims don’t fit that definition nor does yours. You just don’t see that point. “

Here we go…

“The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena,”

Me: The phenomena is that we exist on a planet teeming with life forms, including a species that is intelligent and self aware.

You: The phenomena is that we exist on a planet teeming with life forms, including a species that is intelligent and self aware.

“the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena,”

Me: The hyposthesis is that all life on our planet evolved from simple single-celled organisms.

You: The hypotehsis is that all life on this planet was the result of a creator and that all forms of life were created exactly as they exist today, and that no evolutionary changes in species have ever occured.

“experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis,”

Me: Observation of fossil records at the deepest levels of rock in the earth’s crust show no signs of life 4 billion of years ago. The first fossils of single celled organisms were found in rock 3.5 billion years ago. The first fossils of muticellular organisms didn’t appear until 610 million years ago in the ocean. After this point, the fossil records show a surge in biolgical diversity over about a 10 million year period. About 500 million years ago the first plants and fungi appeared, followed by arthropods. Around 300 million years ago the first amphibians appeared, Mammals about 200 million, brids and reptiles around 100 million years ago.

You: Uhh.. Err… because the bible said so…

“and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.”

Me: The conclusion is that all life must have evolved from simple life forms because the fossil records clearly show that the oldest fossils only show simple organisms, and the more recent ones show more complex organisms. Also, fossil records have actually documented the changes that have occured in specific species.

You: The conclusion is that because life is so complex it must have been designed that way, even though I am unable to observe or test this hypothesis that led me to this conclusion.

“When there are many evidences of design why not attribute it to a designer - why not that option.”

Bingo, we have a winner. You actually are suggesting it is ok for science to say “why not” for something that is unknown. You’re new name should be eternallymisinformed.

This is the definition of scientific method from dictionary.com: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Please explain to me how any of the wild claims you have made about the origins of the life and the universe meet this criteria?

Hi annv,

I am answering your initial question. But things turn out to be monstrous (and I have not created it) when I say something to make a point and people latch on it rather than seeing the point. When there are many evidences of design why not attribute it to a designer - why not that option. But immediately there are people ready to pounce on me asking me to present evidence for what I have claimed and that leads me to ask them evidence for their position and so it goes on.

The point is people are not willing to look at design or God as a real entity. Neither do they want to see anything as an evidence for God. God and His Church needs proper study. You are entertained by the rituals in the Roman Church and some people in fact find peace and joy in those rituals. But the true Church does not have any rituals. Jesus did not teach any rituals. The writers of the Bible always reported. It does not read like some fairy tale or mythology but rather reads like a testimony.

*Wait, so you freely admit that the sites that you claim are evidence are in fact completely lacking in credibility, yet still stand by your position that there is

“scientific evidence” of your absurd claims?*

You are putting words into my mouth. I said if I provide any sites you would term it non-credible. I did not admit anything.

Scientific evidence - the real sort of scientific evidence - isn’t hosted solely on crackpot sites run by fundamentalists.

This is what I meant in the above sentence. You reffered to those sites as crackpot sites. People in many of those sites are scientists -“real scientists”, who have studied those evidence but who are not allowed to question those “real scientific evidence” in the “real scientific sites”. Therefore they are forced to put up their own sites or use existing sites of similar people.

*If the only information that confirms your point of view is on sites that you yourself admit come across as crackpottery, wouldn’t you be forced to

conclude that anyone doing their own research will either agree with the scientific stance, or not be doing unbiased research?*

Again I did not admit anything. People like you like to openly yell out that certain sites are crackpot sites but have you bothered to enter into with an unbiased heart and consider those questions and thoughts put forward by those scientists? Only looking at “real scientific” sites would not be an unbiased research but looking at both views is required.

As the person making the extraordinary claim, that’s your job, not mine. It’s as if I’d said “elephants can fly, and every zookeeper in the world is involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress this information”, and then told you that it’s up to you to go prove my own (absurd) assertion for me.

Idially I should be the one doing it but it would not work that way. I have visited various sites that provides ample details of the consipiracy. I cannot take all the contents off those sites and present it here. Nor can I provide you the address, because if I do you will be quick to reject those sites and brand them as run by religious fenatics. Therefore I am left with only one choice, to ask you to go and find out for yourself. Also my intention, as I had made it clear earlier, is not to prove anything to anyone but to encourage everyone to do consider their position and do an unbiased research for themselves.

Nonsense. Certainly you won’t find any “crocoducks” or similarly ill-suited organisms, because they never happened. Every ‘transitional’ species is in and of itself a fully formed species that was well suited to the environment at the time.

What you say don’t make any sense. First you say that evolution is a slow process. Then yuo say that “Every ‘transitional’ species is in and of itself a fully formed species “. If you have a water creature with fins slowly evolving to a land animal with legs, the fins don’t just turn into legs one fine morning. There must be a middle stage where the limb is neither a leg nor a fin because evolution is supposed to happen over a long period of time. Why are no such fossils found? As for the link that you provided, there were many such claims in the past like the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Luci etc. and thay have all been later on found to be fake. This one also requires time. Let us wait and see.

I’m sure it was taught - but not as science. And individual scientists certainly believed that. But as scientists, they were prepared to say “I don’t know”, and admit they had no scientific theory that readily explained the diversity of life on earth. “I don’t know” is how science moves forward.

It was taught as science and creation was taught to be the origin of life.

That’s because Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions, and isn’t falsifiable.

Who decides that? Why did they decide so? Is not design in all the universe evidences? Are not the designs on this planet tangible? But they simply cannot tollerate God. A blanket statement is made that Intelligent Design is not scientific and all the creation and ID scientist are not considered scientists. They are completely ignored.

“As I said earlier the evidence is there all over the internet and many books are written about them. Go do your research and discover it yourself.”

As the person making the extraordinary claim, that’s your job, not mine. It’s as if I’d said “elephants can fly, and every zookeeper in the world is involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress this information”, and then told you that it’s up to you to go prove my own (absurd) assertion for me.

“It is a known fact that no transitions fossil ( I.e fossil of any animal in the intermediate stage of evolution) has ever been found.”

Nonsense. Certainly you won’t find any “crocoducks” or similarly ill-suited organisms, because they never happened. Every ‘transitional’ species is in and of itself a fully formed species that was well suited to the environment at the time. That’s how evolution works. And we’re constantly finding fossils that fit between previously discovered species, as you’d expect. Here’s one recent example: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/puijila_the_walking_seal_beautiful_transitional_fossil.php

“Before Darwin in science classes it was taught that God created the universe and scientists believed in that.”

I’m sure it was taught - but not as science. And individual scientists certainly believed that. But as scientists, they were prepared to say “I don’t know”, and admit they had no scientific theory that readily explained the diversity of life on earth. “I don’t know” is how science moves forward.

“They are. Any paper suggesting Intelligent design is outright rejected.”

That’s because Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions, and isn’t falsifiable.

“It is at this junction that some teachers have mentioned that evolution is being questioned by many modern scientists.”

But that’s manifestly untrue. You’d be hard pressed to find more than half a dozen legitimate biologists who reject evolution by natural selection. Of the Discovery Institute’s list of “scientists who reject evolution”, the vast majority are not actually practicing scientists, and of the remainder, very few study in the field of biology, and of those, only 2 or 3 actually reject evolution. How does that add up to “many modern scientists”?

Because it does not fit the scientific criteria of theory. It is neither observable or testable.

Neither is macro evolution observable or testable. The point is that there is the origin of life in question and two theories were presented. Both claimed to have evidence both required assumptions. Why does the scietists select one and reject the other?

Sure, but of what? A mere observation of design says nothing about its origin. Your claim that it is proof of a designer is just suppostion.

When you see a design you have two options. One is that a designer was there and the other is that the design came from nothing. What would a logical thinker pick? The existence of a designer, because it does not make sense to say design came from nothing. But you don’t seem to be bothered about logic here. You rather seem to have an agenda of completly excluding the designer.

Here we go… Tolerate? Belief in god should have absolutely nothing to do with science. Science is about explaining things through observation and testing. God is neither observable nor testable.

Really? Then why do you use science to conclude that there is no God? God is neither observable nor testable directly but His effects are.

*if ID were to be taken seriously, it would need to present some kind of evidence beside the end result. They start with the fact that there is so much complexity in the universe. That is not denied. Then they present the hypothesis that the ONLY possible way for such complexity is through a sentient

designer. After that, there is nothing else. Nothing to observe, or test. That is not science. And you have offered nothing in the way of evidence to prove this world wide conspiracy of scientists that are our to get god…*

If it is not science to say that, the only possible way for such complexity is through a sentient designer, then is it science to say that the only possible way for such complexity is through nothing? Why don’t you see the flaw? Aslo why do you keep repeating that I do not provide evidence like you have not read any of by previous posts? I have already said, that it is better that you find out the evidence for yourself IF you want to know the truth. If you don’t want to know the truth then don’t bother about it.

“Idially I should be the one doing it but it would not work that way. I have visited various sites that provides ample details of the consipiracy. I cannot take all the contents off those sites and present it here. Nor can I provide you the address, because if I do you will be quick to reject those sites and brand them as run by religious fenatics.”

Wait, so you freely admit that the sites that you claim are evidence are in fact completely lacking in credibility, yet still stand by your position that there is “scientific evidence” of your absurd claims?

Scientific evidence - the real sort of scientific evidence - isn’t hosted solely on crackpot sites run by fundamentalists.

“Also my intention, as I had made it clear earlier, is not to prove anything to anyone but to encourage everyone to do consider their position and do an unbiased research for themselves.”

If the only information that confirms your point of view is on sites that you yourself admit come across as crackpottery, wouldn’t you be forced to conclude that anyone doing their own research will either agree with the scientific stance, or not be doing unbiased research?

“If you have a water creature with fins slowly evolving to a land animal with legs, the fins don’t just turn into legs one fine morning. There must be a middle stage where the limb is neither a leg nor a fin because evolution is supposed to happen over a long period of time. Why are no such fossils found?”

I linked to an article on just such a fossil - a walking seal - earlier in this very thread.

“It was taught as science and creation was taught to be the origin of life.”

Not in science class. It is not, and never was, a scientific theory, and scientists of the time fully understood that fact, even if they themselves held it as a personal belief.

If you disagree, I once again invite you to present evidence.

Hi Eternallife,

My initial question was about the possible invention of God. You are actually answering that. And I am sorry to say that you have created a Monster…

I consider the Bible (and its historical chronological evolution) as an object of study most beautiful. I have a deep love for the many artistic expressions caused by christian religion (amongst others, by the way). I can even be entertained, at times, by the magical wackiness of religious ceremony (who would not enjoy watching a session of The-Blessing-of-the-Throat in a Baroque Roman church?). I am aware of, and have respect for the financial and moral encouragement by the Church to maintain significant contributions to the development of modern science (the one that you seem to reject so effortlessly).

But your uninformed waffle is embarrassing and undignified. You are making your god ugly. And to be frank, I do not like it!

“Who decides that?”

A consensus of the scientific community.

“Why did they decide so?”

Because it does not fit the scientific criteria of theory. It is neither observable or testable.

“Is not design in all the universe evidences?”

Sure, but of what? A mere observation of design says nothing about its origin. Your claim that it is proof of a designer is just suppostion.

“Are not the designs on this planet tangible?”

Again, that proves nothing, nor lends any creedance to your theory of where it came from.

“But they simply cannot tollerate God.”

Here we go… Tolerate? Belief in god should have absolutely nothing to do with science. Science is about explaining things through observation and testing. God is neither observable nor testable.

“A blanket statement is made that Intelligent Design is not scientific and all the creation and ID scientist are not considered scientists. They are completely ignored. “

It is not a blanket statement. Intelligent design has been presented to various scientific organization. It has been reviewed and roundly rejected, not because of some consipracy, but on the merits of the science. They are ignored because they in fact are not scientists. At least not experts in biology, geology or palentology.

If ID were to be taken seriously, it would need to present some kind of evidence beside the end result. They start with the fact that there is so much complexity in the universe. That is not denied. Then they present the hypothesis that the ONLY possible way for such complexity is through a sentient designer. After that, there is nothing else. Nothing to observe, or test. That is not science. And you have offered nothing in the way of evidence to prove this world wide conspiracy of scientists that are our to get god…

Rational people WILL listen to you, even if your claims are that fantastic. But you must provide credible evidence that is based on objective observation. The sites that you recommended all have dogmatic agendas. It is NOT how science works.

These sites provide information on why the Evolution is not possible. This type of information is present in such sites because… you guessed it “The Conspiracy”.

Science observes, verifies and concludes provisionally (in that chronology). And it is open to chance when new empirical evidence shows up.

Well then how has Macro evolution (transition of one kind of animal to anther) been observed or verified?

Are you really suggesting that scienetists and science journals have an agenda like this?

Yes

What would be there motive?

To keep the theory of Evolution from being disproved, because evolution is the only way they can keep God out.

Do you have any evidence this is really happening? Or is the only evidence the fact that none of your so-called evidence has been taken seriously by ANY scientific organization?

These sites that I presented and many other such has the evidences but unfortunately you would term them religious fanatics.

Do you have actual examples of reports disproving evolution being rejected by science journals?

You can find them all over the internet. A movie recently has testimonies of professors and scientists who have lost their jobs and had been black listed for for suggesting that Evolution could be wrong.

Do an unbiased research for yourself

The point is that if my claims don’t fit that definition nor does yours. You just don’t see that point.

I’m still waiting for evidence on any of the many claims you’ve made. I’m not interested in continuing to do your footwork for you.

*Not in science class. It is not, and never was, a scientific theory, and scientists of the time fully understood that fact, even if they themselves held it as a personal belief.

If you disagree, I once again invite you to present evidence.*

Mind telling me what was taught before Darwin about the origin of life?

“That is excatly what they thought about those who claimed that the earth was round until they finally discovered that it was. If you choose to be ignorant that is up to you.”

The problem is, to be a new galileo, it’s not enough to just be persecuted - you also have to be right.

*I am sorry to say that your claims are wild and your arguments preposterous… Repeating them does not make them any more expectable…!

That is excatly what they thought about those who claimed that the earth was round until they finally discovered that it was. If you choose to be ignorant that is up to you.

“This type of information is present in such sites because… you guessed it “The Conspiracy”. “

You’re making an extraordinary claim - that every biologist in the world is involved in some sort of conspiracy. You’re going to need to present some pretty extraordinary evidence to prove it. As in, more than just claiming it’s true.

“Well then how has Macro evolution (transition of one kind of animal to anther) been observed or verified?”

First, the distinction between ‘Macro’ and ‘Micro’ evolution is a spurious one. Lots of small changes add up to big ones. We have an extensive and detailed fossil record that shows large changes over time.

“To keep the theory of Evolution from being disproved, because evolution is the only way they can keep God out.”

That’s not how science works. Even before Darwin, ‘God’ wasn’t an explicit part of science, because it’s not a scientific hypothesis. Science isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know” when there’s no good theory for something.

“You can find them all over the internet. A movie recently has testimonies of professors and scientists who have lost their jobs and had been black listed for for suggesting that Evolution could be wrong. “

Again, that’s not scientific literature, it’s popular culture. If there’s this huge conspiracy, you should at least be able to demonstrate the existence of some quality papers that were rejected from science journals purely based on their point of view, right?

And in my opinion, a teacher that refuses to teach evolution through natural selection when it’s in their curriculum should lose their job. It’s not up to a teacher to decide whether or not they want their students to learn specific parts of science - it’s their job to teach the curriculum that’s been set for them.

‘m sorry, you said “Now that evolution has been scientifically proved wrong…”, but all you’re linking to is a set of sites that are not scientific journals; sites that make claims backed up by no actual evidence.

Well I am really sorry about you because you have not read those sites that question evolution and you are solely trusting the science journals for what the truth is. If you seriously think that anything questioning evolution will be published in science journals then you are very far from the truth. Evolution is a well kept religion and there are people whose sole job is to see to it that nothing against evolution appears anywhere in any science journals. If you want to know the truth do your own research.

The findings are not supported by science in the least. Either show us real scienctific evidence, or we will have to assume you have none, and thus your claims and credibility are non-existent.

Well what are the evidences for Evolution? Some of the sites I have provided have refuted those evidences. I knew you you would them them as religious fanatics. If you don’t do an unbiased research you will not know the truth

Hey Eternallife,

I am sorry to say that your claims are wild and your arguments preposterous… Repeating them does not make them any more expectable…!

Ignorance is NOT a virtue…!

Your knowledge of the Bible provide you at least with some dignity; your ignorance about the processes of science makes you laughable; please stop it?

Thanks for all the answers! No.., I did not look for evidence that suggests that social cognition predated religious thought. I must admit that I assumed on that one. However, evolutionary history would strongly suggest the existence of social structures before hominoids expressed religious ideas. But sure, that does not prove the point.

As for Adam and Eve; they appeared on the scene not before 3000 years ago. Many branches of science have provided an abundance of evidence that social cognition was already in operation for several millennia before that.

“You’re saying ‘social cognition’ came before Adam and Eve, who talked directly to God in the Garden of Eden / religion”

Now you’re assuming the truth of your religion even while you attempt to prove it. Good job.

Honestly, no hard evidence is necessary to draw that conclusion. But if you’ve accurately described what has been observed, then sure.

Well when it comes to a very touchey topic as religion, you can say what you like and what you feel but asking such a question on a site like this you will get very confusing answers, that not all will be right in a way. So a little before advice, don’t take what is said on here to be 100% accurate.

I believe that God is out there in heaven, I feel in my heart he is there. I might get a lot of crud from people who believe other wise but I chose to follow what was in my heart as to what science had laid out in front of me. If they think that people made God up, well, it can be likley, but to me I can feel him, hes there for me, helping me. Thats why I believe hes there.

Social cognition is very much older than religious notion. << - You’re saying ‘social cognition’ came before Adam and Eve, who talked directly to God in the Garden of Eden / religion obvious ? - Since they were the first people on earth, thus the very first human brains, how is it possible ‘social cognition’ pre-ceded WAY before them ?

Bed 12 is ready.

You’re pushing it a little in this one… Just because the same part of the brain processes something, doesnt prove anything…

Also, you’re going off an assumption that social cognition predates religious thought… There’s no way to prove that…

Yea I think that is kinda “evidence” I personally believe religion was totally made up by man kind to scare people into doing the right things, it puts the fear of going to hell into them so they behave well.

You’re making an extraordinary claim - that every biologist in the world is involved in some sort of conspiracy. You’re going to need to present some pretty extraordinary evidence to prove it. As in, more than just claiming it’s true.

As I said earlier the evidence is there all over the internet and many books are written about them. Go do your research and discover it yourself.

First, the distinction between ‘Macro’ and ‘Micro’ evolution is a spurious one. Lots of small changes add up to big ones. We have an extensive and detailed fossil record that shows large changes over time.

Micro evolution is a “lot of small changes” in one kind of animal. But when you say that there small changes “adds up to big changes” I.e one kind of animal evolving to another, that is where assumption comes in. The scientists just assumes that and you have to believe that. By the way all that is available is a huge number of fossils. It is a known fact that no transitions fossil ( I.e fossil of any animal in the intermediate stage of evolution) has ever been found.

That’s not how science works. Even before Darwin, ‘God’ wasn’t an explicit part of science, because it’s not a scientific hypothesis. Science isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know” when there’s no good theory for something.

Oh Yes it was. Before Darwin in science classes it was taught that God created the universe and scientists believed in that. It was Darwin’s theory that changed all these.

Again, that’s not scientific literature, it’s popular culture. If there’s this huge conspiracy, you should at least be able to demonstrate the existence of some quality papers that were rejected from science journals purely based on their point of view, right?

They are. Any paper suggesting Intelligent design is outright rejected. Again books and the internet have enough testimonies for this (if you are willing to look).

And in my opinion, a teacher that refuses to teach evolution through natural selection when it’s in their curriculum should lose their job. It’s not up to a teacher to decide whether or not they want their students to learn specific parts of science - it’s their job to teach the curriculum that’s been set for them.

I agree that any teacher who refuses to teach the curriculum must loose their job. But we know that the text books are not always updated with the latest. In such situation it is often the practice especially in science class for the teacher to provide some information on what the current scenario is. It is at this junction that some teachers have mentioned that evolution is being questioned by many modern scientists. It is such teachers who have lost their jobs and this is in no way justifiable.

Who wants to keep God out?! Personally, I would love to have a pair of cosy divine apron-strings to hold on to. But so far, hhhmmm, not likely to be reality… no one seem to have a good idea as to where to find evidence for this magic wonder being… So NO… I do not believe in the existence of YOUR god or any other people’s one… Bad luck for you…!

All of them want to keep God out. You also want to keep God out. You don’t want God. If you did you like many others would not sit around stubbornly wanting “evidence” while insisting that it should fit your definition for “evidence”. God exists and He provides those evidence that fits His definition of evidence. If you don’t accept those evidences its your problem. By the the if you don’t believe in God its “Bad luck for you” not for me.

Oh.. about ‘scientific observation’…; imagine a detective entering a room. there is a dead body that is covered in blood. A big knife (also covered in blood) lies next to the body. In the next room is an open (and empty) safe. Footprints (made with blood) lead to a broken window…

Your example is not appropriate because in your story the evidences are quite plain. That is not how it is for evolution. In fact I could give you such a story also. Imagine you left your room and went away somewhere and after 10 years you came back and saw that things were in order and it was clean, dust free and without cobwebs around. What would you assume? Did it become clean of the time by itself or was someone was around? It is plain that someone was around. Again you need not have to be there to know that someone was in your room doing the cleaning.

agreed with ty actually

I’m naive. is MRI… Magnetic Resonance Imaging?… or an institute of some sort?

Which questions constitute religious based considerations? Religion is very tribalistic… and used largely for social interaction… but these differ greatly from the mental gymnastics required to contemplate questions that are unanswerable given our current reasoning capabilities.

What is the source for this study? What questions were asked? Was the study biased by an agenda?

Is social cognition equivalent to superego?… or is it simply the recognition that others exist? If it is superego… this is mammalian… and I could envisage a thunderclap evoking an unanswerable question to protomammals… I am not sure social cognition is older than contemplations of the unknown.

Hey Miscegenymiser,

I left a comment on your account with a YouTube address that might give a bit more background data on the subject…

“Well I am really sorry about you because you have not read those sites that question evolution and you are solely trusting the science journals for what the truth is. Evolution is a well kept religion and there are people whose sole job is to see to it that nothing against evolution appears anywhere in any science journals. If you want to know the truth do your own research.”

Are you really suggesting that scienetists and science journals have an agenda like this? What would be there motive? Do you have any evidence this is really happening? Or is the only evidence the fact that none of your so-called evidence has been taken seriously by ANY scientific organization? Do you have actual examples of reports disproving evolution being rejected by science journals? So far you have made many many claims, but not one shred of evidence to support them.

Hi Eternallife,

As you can see, your sources are checked. The people who create those sites try to prove preconceived notions. The despair leaks out of their ideas. They have not engaged in scientific investigation and will fail peer review if they attempted. Theirs form the continuation of the claims that lightning was created by Thor’s hammer.

Rational people WILL listen to you, even if your claims are that fantastic. But you must provide credible evidence that is based on objective observation. The sites that you recommended all have dogmatic agendas. It is NOT how science works.

Science observes, verifies and concludes provisionally (in that chronology). And it is open to chance when new empirical evidence shows up. Fundamentalist thinking starts with a rigid idea, and than looks for evidence or proof to support that idea.

It is the ‘fundamentalist’ concept that is practiced on the websites that you pointed out. If you believe what they claim in the name of religion, you just about will believe anything that is claimed in the name of religion. And I think that’s exactly what you do…

“Well I am really sorry about you because you have not read those sites that question evolution and you are solely trusting the science journals for what the truth is.”

Once again, you clearly misunderstand the meaning of “scientific evidence”. If it’s not a proper study, published in a peer reviewed journal, it’s not scientific evidence, it’s an anecode. And that’s all the sites you linked to peddle: anecdotes.

“Evolution is a well kept religion and there are people whose sole job is to see to it that nothing against evolution appears anywhere in any science journals.”

Right. It’s all a giant conspiracy theory which you have absolutely no evidence for. Of course.

“Well what are the evidences for Evolution?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

“Some of the sites I have provided have refuted those evidences.”

No, they’ve made arguments about claims people never actually made about evolution, or they’ve made broken attempts to refute peer reviewed research with poorly thought out diatribes. Unless you want to bring up some specific bit of evidence falsifying evolution, though, vagueness is all you’re going to get.

“If you don’t do an unbiased research you will not know the truth “

Given that every one of the sites you linked to is a front for a christian fundamentalist interpretation of the universe, how are your sources unbiased? I’ll stick with the system that’s produced all scientific knowledge in the last 100 years, thanks.

However, evolutionary history would strongly suggest the existence of social structures before hominoids expressed religious ideas.

Many branches of science have provided an abundance of evidence that social cognition was already in operation for several millennia before that.

Evolution? Millions of years?!! The Evolution theory has been proved wrong. There are no evidences for evolution. Evolution needed the millions of years because only then would the so called evolution would work. Now that evolution has been scientifically proved wrong we have to throw out the assumption that earth is millions of years old.

The millions of years has also been scientifically proved wrong. That means again evolution does not work and has to be scrapped.

The creator has already told us when the universe was created and how it was done. But man wants to brush Him aside and find out for himself. That is trying to re-invent the wheel.

“The Evolution theory has been proved wrong. “

Really? You really should let the vast majority of professional and academic biologists in the world know. And, perhaps, present just the slightest scrap of evidence for your extraordinary claim? Some peer reviewed papers, perhaps?

“Now that evolution has been scientifically proved wrong we have to throw out the assumption that earth is millions of years old.”

Actually, it’s not an assumption. Apart from the fossil record, geology, plate techtonics, and cosmology all give us an approximate age for the earth, and all of them agree that it’s about 4 billion years old.

“The millions of years has also been scientifically proved wrong.”

Guess you’d better let all the cosmologists, astronomers, and geologists know, too, then. And once again, actually present some evidence for this absurd claim.

“The creator has already told us when the universe was created and how it was done.”

Which creator? There’s plenty of different creation stories to choose from.

Hi Eternallife,

You have made a few very extraordinary claims on this site. Now you did it again. As Arachnid pointed out; please… share the evidence of your claims. If you do that, people WILL listen to you…!

Your claims are of an enormous magnitude if they can be verified. If you have empirical sources and you are confident enough about the plausibility of your ideas, you might even be provided with a research grant. Peer reviewed papers however, are a requirement in the academic world. If you are not willing to provide verifiable evidence of what you claim, you can not be taken seriously.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Educated people will check your sources.

(by the way, in this context, I did not mention millions of years. In case that you referring to ‘millennia’, a millennium counts for one thousand years).

I will be surprised if eternallife dares to respond annv and arachnid. He seems to be among the (thankfully) few nutjobs who believe in the bible literally. They will look at some fringe “scientific study” that is roundly condemned by the academic world, and not only will they choose to believe the study, but they will also use the condemnations to claim that the academics are anti-religion, since they won’t take their “scientist’s” findings seriously. They know nothing of the scientific method. It scare them because reading about real science and evidence might burst their little fantasy world.

I am really shocked at how many people are still deceived by the Evolutionists. Well there are too many evidences against Evolution I cannot put all of them down here. I would advice you to study it yourself and find out. Here are a few sites. I invite anyone who wants to know the truth, anyone who can do an unbiased reading to go through these sites. They have all refuted Evolution.

http://www.askdarwinists.com/ http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms.html http://www.detectingdesign.com/

I’m sorry, you said “Now that evolution has been scientifically proved wrong…”, but all you’re linking to is a set of sites that are not scientific journals; sites that make claims backed up by no actual evidence.

Still waiting for those journal references.

eternallife, you are shocked? That is a bit much, isn’t it? The only evidence these websites show is that religious fanatics know how to create websites. The findings are not supported by science in the least. Either show us real scienctific evidence, or we will have to assume you have none, and thus your claims and credibility are non-existent.