Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[jaydeehess]

What we have recently found are planets that have orbits which permits the presence of liquid water on their surface.

We don't yet know if they actually have any water or anything about any atmospheres they may or may not have.

The Jan/Feb issue of Discover Magazine covers this year in science and has a page on planetary discoveries including a couple that are in the so called Goldilocks zone, both rocky planets, one of which is Earth sized. IIRC

 

[Spindrift]

And, when we do find life elsewhere in the Universe as we most likely surely will, will the Elf Grinders of the world um . . . er . . . you know. Or will they move the goal posts? One hopes, at least, that they will stop grinding elves.

Those goalposts will never stop moving.

 

[Hellbound]

Those goalposts will never stop moving.

And eventually, as science expands ever faster and farther, those goalposts will form the basis for the first FTL drive.

 

[jaydeehess]

The odd bit is that while science has not found life on another planet,,,, yet, theists have not located God either. Somehow only not finding other life matters though.

 

[Dinwar]

No one found any planets with the ability to support life...

That's a tad harsh. We've only been able to look for about 20 years--and only in the last handful of years have we been able to look for planets that might contain life. Plus, we found some potential indications of life on a moon of Jupiter (I forget which; it's the one with liquid hydrocarbons). The data are ambiguous, but fit with one viable biochemistry in such a situation.

The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...

I'm generally in agreement with the notion that exobiologists are guilty of assuming that Earth-like life is life as such. However, we've gotta start somewhere.

Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...

Cherry picking is ubiquitious and disengenuous. Plus, I could find two scientists to agree with ANYTHING. I know a geologist that's a registered member of the Hollow Earth Society. It proves nothing.

This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

Life didn't evolve randomly. No scientist believes it did. Abiogenesis was not a random process; it was the inevitable result of a series of processes and thermodynamics. Evolution--which is an entirely separate concept--is most defnitely not random either.

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

#1 is an unknown. NO ONE knows how many planets have life.

#2 is known. The issue with abiogenesis isn't finding a viable pathway; these days it's picking among multiple viable options.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place

Flagrantly false. This statement can only be a lie this day and age. We have observed mutations leading to differential survival in numerous organisms, from bacteria to fruit flies. We have observed speciation directly, in the form of invasive species that become reproductively isolated from their parent populations. It's routine to, when possible, match paleontological cladograms with genetic cladograms for numerous Cenozoic critters, often allowing us to point to the precise genes that caused the morphological changes we see in the fossil record. de Vries' primrose experiments in the 1800s directly proved the mechanism for evolution, and we have since refined it to a very precise science.

The evidence for abiogenesis is a tad more difficult to wrap your head around, but the presence of chemical trace fossils is pretty definitive. To go into any further detail would require an understanding of the chemistry behind metabolism and of stable isotopic chemistry. The evidence for individual mechanisms is experimental in nature--as in, we've run the experiments. Repeatedly.

The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear

Abiogenesis=/= evolution.

And you're right that life appearing where it wasn't isn't proof of abiogenesis. But it IS evidence. If someone presented evidence that it came from somewhere else, we'd look at that posibility. No one has--they've merely demanded we take a dusty old book that many of us don't believe in seriously. Imagine how YOU would feel if we did that to you.

Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

Great gods in hell....Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It merely means that most selection is conservative--organisms quickly reach local fitness maxima (I've been toying with the concept of "local selection minimal", but haven't fully formulated it yet) extremely quickly (in geological terms), then tend to stay there for long periods of time (compared to the time it takes to reach the maxima). This has nothing to do with abiogenesis. I've seen enough data to become convinced that this isn't the only tempo of evolutionary change, eitherr--some groups do exhibit apaprenlty continuous change. I'm not sure it mattered for the earliest life forms--horizontal gene transfer dominated evolution at the time, so this sort of consideration was a non-issue.

 

[turingtest]

Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe



No one found any planets with the ability to support life...



The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...



The probability that the universe formed is low as well...



Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...





This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping

The article in your OP is behind a paywall, so I didn't read it; but it appears, from this post of yours, and the responses to it, that your "God Exists, Science proves it" theme is the usual creationist tactic of framing an argument against one thing (evolution) as necessarily proof of something else (goddidit). No, just...no. If you want to play the game of science, you need to play by its rules; this means your own "theory" needs its own merits, its own evidence, to stand on, entirely apart from any holes you may think you see in another. Re the highlighted above- aside from the fact that (as others here have pointed out) you're conflating evolution with abiogenesis...how is "goddidit!" any less a tautology, or any more explanatory of the mechanism by which life appeared? It's a bald declaration, not an explanation at all.

As JayUtah says of CTists, they are never willing to subject their own theories (when they even have discernible ones) to the same standard of evidence they demand for the ones they oppose; it seems the same is true of creationists. Bottom line is, you cannot "prove" that god exists just by opposition to evolution; science isn't a zero-sum game where there are only two theories- "goddidit!" and evolution- and yours wins by default when (you think) you've ruled out evolution (which you clearly don't understand anyway).

 

[turingtest]

Quote:
This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

Life didn't evolve randomly. No scientist believes it did. Abiogenesis was not a random process; it was the inevitable result of a series of processes and thermodynamics. Evolution--which is an entirely separate concept--is most defnitely not random either.

EG's use of "randomly" here is another example of what seems to me to be a habit creationists have of projecting their own expectations onto what science says. When they say "random," what they really mean is "without purpose." It seems obvious, without the normative preconception of religion, that there is nothing at all random about life developing as a result of (and within) the constraints imposed by the universe. But if you look through the lens of religion, it must be random if there was no intent.

From a rational POV, I can't imagine anything more actually random than a god who can do anything.

 

[Butter!]

I'm going to ask the question I always ask when this subject comes up. Maybe I'll actually get an answer this time.

Elf Grinder - silently weeping? Seriously, what makes you think that atheists or agnostics see this stuff as some kind of contest? "Neener, neener, you're wrong, there's a god." Is that really how you think it works for us? Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.

That's literally all there is to it.

 

[Dancing David]

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping

Notably lacking are the citations to support your assertions.

Which science, where exactly, please do tell.

 

[Biscuit]

I just read that article on a friends FB post and found the title to be completely misleading. Science has not now nor ever pointed to god as the answer. Rather the author, through assertion and misunderstanding, reveals his own incredulity towards the existence of life without there being a god. That is a far cry from science pointing towards the existence of god.

It is also dishonestly or lazily written. The author quotes Fred Hoyle almost verbatim from wikipedia. The article notes the Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" but fails to point out that Hoyle did not develop the big bang theory and actually opposed that theory. Instead the author would have you believe that the creator of the Big Bang theory was a proponent of intelligent design. Whether this was done intentionally or out of ignorance on the author's behalf is unknown.

(He also fails to mention that Hoyle believed AIDS arrived on a comet but that's none of my business...)

Religion needs to get over it's obsession with misusing and misunderstanding science. It's embarrassing.

 

[Olowkow]

Religion is a needy and mendacious father figure delusion fixated on sex and death.

Why does the all knowing god of Abraham appear to require 21st century scientific validation at every turn when inflicting its twisted morality on humankind? How would the world be any different if a god were actually proven to exist by dint of these silly arguments for vindication? Would it then peer sheepishly down from its heavenly aerie and agree to stop all the suffering and war or confess he got it wrong on slavery and other bronze age pipe dreams that have served only to mess with humans' progress?

Who cares?

 

[Dinwar]

EG's use of "randomly" here is another example of what seems to me to be a habit creationists have of projecting their own expectations onto what science says.

Given my discussions with Creationists, I believe that this is what they think we think. Obviously different data sets will yield different results, but the Creationists I've spoken with tend to believe scientists really believe evolution to be a genuinely random process. If you understand the mathematical term, getting them to pin down what random is is REALLY fun, by the way!

Religion needs to get over it's obsession with misusing and misunderstanding science.

Let's not attribute to the entire enterprise the mistakes of a small subset. For every idiot who cherry-picks quotes out of context, I can find a religious scientist. I've read a number of Bakker's works, and have yet to find any evidence that his religious beliefs (he is an Evangelical preacher) have contributed...well, at all, really, to his scientific interpretations.

Elf Grinder - silently weeping? Seriously, what makes you think that atheists or agnostics see this stuff as some kind of contest? "Neener, neener, you're wrong, there's a god." Is that really how you think it works for us? Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.

Well said. While a few may hold atheism as a key component of their world-view, most of us non-believing scientists simply don't hold the concept of deities as of any importance. If evidence is presented I'll evaluate it and draw my conclusions. A lack of evidence is itself evidence.

You want us to believe something? Show us the evidence. It's really as simple as that. Evidence against something doesn't count. A book of ambiguous and often clearly fraudulent authorship (by today's standards, anyway) doesn't count. Personal experience doesn't count--because as soon as you tell me about it it's not personal experience, it's hearsay. You need to provide evidence that fits the criteria used by science. Nothing else is worth talking about, and anything less is an admission that you can't--or won't--provide real evidence.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Religion is a needy and mendacious father figure delusion fixated on sex and death.

Why does the all knowing god of Abraham appear to require 21st century scientific validation at every turn when inflicting its twisted morality on humankind? How would the world be any different if a god were actually proven to exist by dint of these silly arguments for vindication? Would it then peer sheepishly down from its heavenly aerie and agree to stop all the suffering and war or confess he got it wrong on slavery and other bronze age pipe dreams that have served only to mess with humans' progress?

Who cares?

For the yucks?

 

[turingtest]

I'm going to ask the question I always ask when this subject comes up. Maybe I'll actually get an answer this time.

Elf Grinder - silently weeping? Seriously, what makes you think that atheists or agnostics see this stuff as some kind of contest? "Neener, neener, you're wrong, there's a god." Is that really how you think it works for us? Why would we "weep" if it turned out there was a god? We're not betting the farm on it, for pity's sake. We just need evidence (real evidence, scientifically sound evidence) to believe in anything, and we certainly haven't seen any for god yet.

That's literally all there is to it.

When folks like EG try to use science to prop up a faith that should only ever need its own legs to stand on, it's not disbelievers they're trying to convince; the contest isn't with anyone but themselves.

 

[thaiboxerken]

God of the Gaps. Same story we've seen over and over again. I guess since there is no evidence of their gods, theists will continue to use fallacious arguments to "prove" their particular god exists.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Elf Grinder 3000, I assume you believe God created the universe and life on Earth, yes? I have a serious question: How did God do it? I mean specifically how? The Bible, from my understanding, just says He spoke things into existence, so... how does that work, exactly?

Honest question.

 

[Slowvehicle]

EG3K:

...just a driveby?

 

[Belz...]

I can hear atheists silently weeping

Every ignorant layman who thinks they've overturned facts that they disagree with thinks so. In reality they are just that: ignorants who don't like facts that disagree with their pet ideas.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Elf Grinder 3000 View Post
I can hear atheists silently weeping

Every ignorant layman who thinks they've overturned facts that they disagree with thinks so. In reality they are just that: ignorants who don't like facts that disagree with their pet ideas.

That pretty much sums up JeffreyW here (split from his "general theory of stellar metamorphosis" thread)- absolute ignorance made invincible by attitude.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That pretty much sums up JeffreyW here (split from his "general theory of stellar metamorphosis" thread)- absolute ignorance made invincible by attitude.

I too have figured out the Secret of LIFE. It's . . . argh . .. huff . . . oh . . . oh . . . . . . . . CLUMP . . . NO CARRIER . . .