Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[arian]

.

We all should be very careful to distinguish between belief and knowledge. It is easy to confuse the two. Anyone can believe anything ("the moon is made of blue cheese" for example, or "Leprechauns live in the forest" – or other things I won't mention in the spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and civility) but those beliefs do NOT constitute knowledge.

Knowledge without belief is like a horse without the carriage, the carriage (knowledge) just sits there. No use for anything until you attach belief to it.

Perhaps you have it backward and knowledge is the horse (which is useful without the carriage) and belief is the carriage. Of what use is the carriage (belief) without knowledge – even though belief seems more popular than knowledge among some groups and individuals?

Knowledge is the horse?? Maybe a dead horse, or like the one front of the supermarket for the children to ride!? You know, the ones the parents put a quarter in to get some action out of it. You can have the knowledge of an entire library, but without the mind believing in it, it just sits there.

What is knowledge worth if you don't believe in it?

If we know it is raining is it necessary to "believe" it is raining?

How do you 'know' it is raining?

Also, I try hard not to store my brain with false knowledge,

By what means do you verify that God exists?

but only verified knowledge.

Many here have asked you to verify the knowledge you claim to possess.

Until you guys use your mind to verify the info (substance), and believe in the evidence, all this knowledge I give you just sits there like a carriage without a horse.

So when I say I believe in something like God for instance, I don't want people to think that; "Oh he said he believes in God, so he must be thinking of Leprechauns or something, lol.. What a dumb ass!"

If you don't wish to be considered "dumb" present the evidence you claim to possess

Thus, you should be willing to do so since you made the claim. You may start any time.

What is it that you want, scientific evidence for Leprechauns? I already gave you the evidence for our Creator.

Typically, genuine knowledge (defined as: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation") is verifiable / testable by anyone interested and motivated. If one claims to know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid / ellipsoid of revolution that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, for instance, one should (must) be able to present compelling evidence that what they say is true.

Do you know anything about the Theory of Relativity? About observers, reference points, frames of reference, etc.?

I may know a little about such things

OK then go out into space with a rocket ship, look at the earth and prove to me it is spinning? Maybe it's just going up and down?

Rather than prove to you with your scenario (or any other), I can cite and have cited evidence that the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun.

No you can't, all you have is hearsay.

Is that proof of the existence of a creator – which you are supposedly trying to present – or is it just another smokescreen / diversion / evasion?

It revealed the error in what people consider 'compelling evidence'.

Zzyzx said: "Typically, genuine knowledge (defined as: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation") is verifiable / testable by anyone interested and motivated. If one claims to know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid / ellipsoid of revolution that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, for instance, one should (must) be able to present compelling evidence that what they say is true"

Same with a heliocentric and geocentric universe, or that the earth is rotating around the sun, or the sun around the earth. If you were on the sun observing earth, the earth would be rising and setting everyday.

From a vantage / vision point on the sun the Earth would appear as a point of light (as would the other planets). However, it would NOT rise and set daily. The sun rotates differentially (depending on location) and takes several days (24 near its equator to 36 near its poles). http://planetfacts.org/rotation-of-the-sun/

Same on earth, days can be shorter and longer on the North Pole compared to places around the equator. Why do you keep stalling? Respond to my Scientific evidence of our Creator, not mix what I said into science fiction, myths and fairytales.

What I am trying to point out is that what you might think as verified and tested knowledge could be a bunch of hocus-pocus.

The objective of verification is to eliminate "hocus pocus" and the objective of scientific study is to continually improve understanding of nature.

Contrast that with religious belief that claims to possess ultimate knowledge based upon what cannot be distinguished from hocus pocus (defined as: sleight of hand / nonsense or sham used especially to cloak deception)

You mean; "cloak the truth" don't you? It is what you are doing with your debating buddies backing you up with other nonsense.

None of you even try to make an effort to understand, or to debate my scientific proof. You guys keep derailing the thread, while I try keeping you on track.

So no matter how much education one may have had, or what quality college they went to doesn't mean the knowledge they poses is correct!?

That is correct. One's knowledge is subject to being incorrect.

Remember, that applies to religious knowledge.

Of course, that's why I call 'religious knowledge'; sci-fi fairytales.

Likewise, those who claim (or suggest) that the Earth does not rotate and is the center of the solar system and/or universe are responsible for demonstrating their proposals to be truthful and accurate.

you mean like the Big-bang Evolution fairytale, only they moved it up to a theory, and to no surprise, today it is referred to as fact.

Religionists tend to think that astrophysicists claim BB as factual. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who actually study such things fully acknowledge that their findings are tentative.

Is BB proof of the existence of a creator? You are still hoping to present evidence, aren't you?

I have, many times already, only because it doesn't fit within your heavily indoctrinated mindset, you just can't understand. We had this same problem when I presented the Undeniable Scientific Evidence of the existence of 'nothing'.

So I guess; "I Am An Ape" who am I, just an animal, a chimp, with no college, 3 years of sporadic grade school to be allowed to debate hundreds of years of accumulated religious fairytales by scientists that have been elevated to the pinnacle of scientific discoveries, masters, geniuses, gods!?

Is this evidence of a creator?

One may "debate" with little or no knowledge of the subject. However, to debate with credibility and to be taken seriously one must substantiate their claims with verifiable information. Education is not synonymous with schooling.

If one does not object to having no credibility or being regarded as a laughingstock they can present any harebrained concoction they wish and claim they are debating.

Boy isn't that the truth, so isn't it time we get back on track?

Besides I wouldn't waste any more of my time on these things, I have bigger fish to fry, like hoping to convince others of the fact that there IS a God, and now they too can prove it. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction

I await information concerning how to prove there is a God. Great thinkers, scholars and theologians have sought that information for millennia – so the world awaits

And there you have it, live from a fellow debater only the Creator that I present is not the supernatural, mythical sci-fi fairytale you were expecting. I have proven that you guys cannot, and will not accept a genuine scientific proof of our Creator God, and the past posts are evidence of this.

I say; "God is not from religion"
You guys say: "There is no concept of god/gods outside of religion" and you guys keep going in circles like that.
I say; "Creator"
You guys say: "Which of the creators are you presenting to us, since there are so many religions that claim to speak for the creator of the universe. Why is yours so special?" LOL.
I say; "The Infinite ONE"
You guys associate that with 'infinite numbers'
I say: "There is only ONE Infinite, and the numbers you are thinking of are not infinite, but finite, only they go on and on."
... sigh, ...

This is going nowhere and is very tiring.

Debate from where I gave the explanation of "God" our Creator, because I will not debate finite, religious ideologies of god/gods, there are just too many to disprove individually. Besides, that is NOT your OP.

If there is something you don't understand, I can, .. and have explained. But if the ONLY way you can understand is through religious doctrine, sorry, no can do. This is a scientific explanation of THE Creator like your OP clearly states. Not creators,

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 80 by arian]

I, for one, appreciate having you demonstrate for all to see a religionist point of view.

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

If you insist on insulting yourself

The person in this conversation that seems to be insulted by acknowledging that humans are animals, primates, and members of the great ape category is NOT FW.

Sad, and even as frightening as this may sound, .. I know! Like the others who responded after FW, they are not insulted either.

Correct: Non-Theists are typically not "insulted" to realize that they are animals, related to other animals. Some religionists seem to think that they are something else (perhaps plants? Or minerals?) OR, perhaps some religionists do not fit into the animal classification? Here are some things to consider:

The following are the key characteristics that animals share:

multicellularity
cells are organised into tissues
eukaryotic cells
sexual reproduction
movement
diploidy
heterotrophy

All animals are multicellular, which means that their bodies are made up of multiple cells. In this way, animals differ from single-celled or unicellular organisms (such as bacteria, archaea, protozoa, single-celled algae, and single-celled fungi). Animals are not the only organisms that are multicellular, land plants and some species of algae and fungi also are multicellular. So although multicellularity is a characteristic shared by all animals, it is not a characteristic unique to animals.

In most animals, cells are organized into different tissues that perform different functions. During the development of an animal, cells differentiate so they can perform specific functions. Groups of cells that work together to serve a common function are called a tissue. There are four basic types of tissue that animals have. These include nervous tissue, epithelial tissue, connective tissue, and muscle tissue. One exception to this characteristic is the sponges. Although sponges are animals, their cells are not organised into true tissues.

All animals are eukaryotes which means they are made up of complex cell that have membrane-bound nuclei and organelles. Animals are eukaryotes, this means animals are made up of cells that have a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles such as mitochondria, Golgi apparatus, and ribosomes. The DNA contained in a eukaryotic cell is linear and is organized into chromosomes. Although all animals are eukaryotes, not all eukaryotes are animals. Plants, fungi, and protists—organisms that are not animals—are nonetheless eukaryotes.

Most animals undergo sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is the process by which an organism creates new offspring. The process involves the combination of the genetic material from two individuals. Sexual reproduction is not a characteristic that is unique to animals—other organisms such as flowering plants, fungi and bacteria also undergo sexual reproduction. Additionally, not all animals undergo sexual reproduction. A small number of animals produce offspring by a process known as asexual reproduction. Since sexual reproduction involves the combination of genetic material of two individuals, it results in genetic variation between parents and offspring. This genetic variation is an important factor in the process of natural selection.

Most animals are capable of movement. Although there are some exceptions, most animals are motile, or capable of movement. There are some animals—such as sponges, some annelids, brachiopods, bryozoans, tunicates, corals, and hydras—that are sessile, or fixed in place, throughout much of their life cycle. But even these animals are motile during some stages in their development. Animals move using a variety of methods—fish swim, birds fly, wolves run, snails slide, and snakes slither. Some animals, such as sea stars and slugs, move very slowly while others, such as cheetahs and sailfish move at an impressive clip. Movement enables animals to avoid predators, capture prey, and colonize new habitats.

Most animals are diploid. The terms diploid and haploid are used to describe how many copies of genetic material are contained within a cell. In diploid cells, there are two full sets of the cell's genetic material, in haploid cells, there is only one full set of the cell's genetic material. Most animals are made up of diploid cells.

All animals are heterotrophs which means they ingest plants and other organisms as a way to get the energy they need to live. All living things need carbon to support the basic processes of life such as growth, development, and reproduction. There are two ways an organism can get the carbon they need: by obtaining it from their environment (in the form of carbon dioxide) or by feeding on other organisms (and obtaining carbon from the organic materials that make up the other organism). Organisms that obtain carbon from their environment are called autotrophs; green plants are examples of autotrophs. Green plants take energy from the sun and use it along with carbon available in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide to produce sugar, a simple organic compound. Organisms, such as animals, that obtain carbon by ingesting other living organisms are called heterotrophs; animals are examples of heterotrophs. All animals must ingest other organisms (such as plants or animals) to obtain the carbon they need to live.
http://animals.about.com/od/animal-fact ... istics.htm

Perhaps "animal deniers" do not possess those characteristics?

Now you understand why I say to stay away from religious fanatic ideologies, because before you know it they will classify you and make you believe in anything,

Religionists / Theists / Worshipers often demonstrate the "fanatic ideologies" you mention -- typified by Islam, Christianity, Judaism and others.

even that you are a chimp

Can you cite a scientific source that makes such claims (No, creationist sites are not scientific, nor are your opinions).

from the ape family. Others are made to believe that if they wear their Nikes and commit suicide, they will get to hop on a meteor and take a ride to never-neverland.

Others attempt to demean and discredit science while using all that science provides – vehicles, electronics, refrigeration, central heat and air (none of which would be possible without contributions from scientific study. The "debunkers" also tend to seek medical attention when ill or injured (science again).

from the academics POV, at least learn what you defend.

Again, it does not appear to be FW who needs to gain some understanding of taxonomy.

Sorry if I don't classify myself somewhere between a few thousand year old fossilized lizard and a dead chicken imprint in stone just because some religious scientists want to put me there. I am not an evolving fossil!

You may classify yourself however you wish. Others are free to have their own ideas regarding your classification.

According to the Academic Evolutionary Fairytale, you are an ape, and an animal.

Correction: According to biologists (people who actually study such things) humans are members of those groups.

Come on now, .. biologists lol. They are 'fossil organizers', they follow their religious handbooks and all they do is organize fossils which are nothing but rocks with imprints of dead animal and some human remains, and make up billion year old stories about them.

Thank you for insight into your thinking / opinion regarding the study of biology. That opinion is a minority opinion in the US (and an even smaller minority in Europe).

According to a new Pew Research Center analysis, six-in-ten Americans (60%) say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,� while a third (33%) reject the idea of evolution, saying that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.� The share of the general public that says that humans have evolved over time is about the same as it was in 2009, when Pew Research last asked the question.
About half of those who express a belief in human evolution take the view that evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection� (32% of the American public overall). But many Americans believe that God or a supreme being played a role in the process of evolution. Indeed, roughly a quarter of adults (24%) say that “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.�
These beliefs differ strongly by religious group. White evangelical Protestants are particularly likely to believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Roughly two-thirds (64%) express this view, as do half of black Protestants (50%). By comparison, only 15% of white mainline Protestants share this opinion.

Perhaps education is finally catching on even among many religionists. However, it might be best that Fundamentalists / Literalists keep on rejecting information that contradicts their religious beliefs for fear of "losing their faith" by acknowledging the validity of scientific research.

As the "Old Guard" religionists die out, they are being replaced by younger generations that have had at least some exposure to critical / analytical thinking and to the advantages of science and medicine over superstition and supernaturalism.

How about we keep Biology a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, .. not make up billion year old stories of fossils found in rocks? Perverting the meaning of 'science', which is 'observing the world around us' to include chance, by I don't know, ..

I do not disagree that you don't know.

picking up a handful of fossils and throwing them on the table, and accept whatever order they fell as the unplanned order of evolution' and make up some ridiculous story like; "Once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago, .." I am sorry but that is not science.

Yes, making up stories is decidedly NOT science – that is left to superstition and religion.

Maybe it's time to brush up on your academics, ay?

Again, it does not seem to be FW who needs to brush up on academics.

Here is what Far Wonderer said: "Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes?"

I corrected him that according to the Evolution story, humans didn't evolve from non-human apes, .. you ARE still an evolving animal, an ape, specifically a chimp.
He said "evolved from apes", and I corrected him that he still IS an ape, according to the old, old story.

One who understands biology, anthropology, taxonomy, and science in general understands that organisms can evolve from earlier members of their taxonomic family without departing from the family.

If this is how it really was, then we would hear;

Forensic Expert: "We found some animal remains here, and upon further investigation we found that it is from the ape family, specifically a chimp. Madam, this MAY BE, the remains of your murdered husband Joe!? Now we are not sure yet until the body fossilizes over the years, then our paleontologists will reexamine it and tell you EVERYTHING about it, including his ancestors, cousins and girlfriends he may or may not have had sex with, what he ate, where he lived, etc. "

Is that an attempt to be cute or funny? Either way, thanks for demonstrating a Theist thinking for all who read

This is called religious beliefs, following strict religious guidelines not science. And if he or anyone is to believe in this religious stuff, then at least they should understand what their faith teaches.

Let's apply the same idea to religious faith.

[Divine Insight]

This is going nowhere and is very tiring.

That should tell you something quite profound. If you aren't convincing anyone the most likely reason is that you're arguments aren't compelling.

You also contradict yourself. You refuse to acknowledge specific religious dogma, yet at the very same time you support Christianity and the dogma that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. That is a very specific religious dogma.

So you have failed miserably to show any "undeniable scientific evidence for THE creator", and especially not for the specific Christian demigod Jesus.

So you have failed.

If you are tiring of this it's only because you have been spinning your wheels. You refuse to confess that you are doing nothing other than trying to support propagate a very specific religion.

If someone was to reply to your arguments and say, "I get it, you have indeed proven that Allah is God!", you would no doubt proclaim that they aren't listening to your specific theological arguments because they haven't acknowledged your specific RELIGION.

As soon as you claim to not be preaching a religion you need to drop Jesus as a demigod like a hot potato. Jesus is definitely a very specific demigod of a very specific religious dogma. There is a lot of dogmatic baggage that comes with Jesus. In fact, Jesus was "nailed" to the entire Old Testament as the virgin born son of the God of Abraham also known as Yahweh, or Jehovah, or whatever.

It a dogma of a very specific personified male God character not unlike the Greek Zeus. He has a big ego, he has self-confessed that he is a very jealous and wrathful God. It's an ancient god myth that makes very specific claims about this God including his male-chauvinistic personality.

You are trying very hard to sweep all that under the carpet but it's not working. There is a huge lump in the middle of your carpet that simply won't go away.

You may not be aware of the lump, but trust me, it's there and it's extremely obvious to everyone else.

[FarWanderer]

Here is what Far Wonderer said: "Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes?"

I corrected him that according to the Evolution story, humans didn't evolve from non-human apes, .. you ARE still an evolving animal, an ape,

I said we evolved from apes that were not human. That doesn't mean that we aren't apes.

specifically a chimp.

Definitely not a chimp. Specifically a human. Humans are apes, but we are not chimps. We might have a lot in common with chimps, being as we're both apes, but we are not the same thing.

I have a question: Do you also have a problem being classified as a mammal?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 72 by arian]

Why would that be insulting? Please elaborate.

Why is it an insult to my human intelligence to be labeled an animal, specifically from the ape family, .. a chimp? Because I have Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The Creator, and He created us in His image, not an animals. Yes, our body was created of dust just like stones, trees, and every other inanimate objects were, but I don't claim my ancestors were made in the image of stone. But I guess that does explain why religions create and worship gods made of stone!

Moderator Comment

You have claimed several times that you have 'Undeniable Scientific Evidence of the Creator." Making such claims as strongly as you have requires, in this forum, substantiation. Either mention that 'undeniable proof' in the body of the post in which you make your claim, or link to the post in which such proof is found. Don't claim to have such proof without providing either the proof, a link to said proof, or a mention of where to find it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 72 by arian]

Why would that be insulting? Please elaborate.

Why is it an insult to my human intelligence to be labeled an animal, specifically from the ape family, .. a chimp? Because I have Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The Creator, and He created us in His image, not an animals.

I thought you agreed that you did not in fact have "Undeniable Scientific Evidence", and, in fact, you only had personal evidence? Was I mistaken?

Yes, our body was created of dust just like stones, trees, and every other inanimate objects were, but I don't claim my ancestors were made in the image of stone. But I guess that does explain why religions create and worship gods made of stone!

This seems more of a "vanity" issue than an "insulting" issue, to me. While it might be ego stroking to consider one's self god-inspired, man-via-evolution certainly in no way diminishes the value of a sentient creature. At least, in my opinion, anyway.

[arian]

[Replying to post 78 by arian]

What's so bad about animals?

Nothing, depending how you cook them they usually taste great. But if you believe your children and relatives are animals, it may cause confusion and Grandma might stuff apples in their mouth and try to throw the children in the oven. It is critical to know which ones are animals, and which are humans created in Gods image.

What's wrong with images of stone?

Nothing, actually I love Augusta Rodin's 'Thinker' sitting on the toilet. Actually I can relate, I also use that private time to think.

Comparing someone to a rose is usually considered a compliment, though not all people like roses.

Nor would I compare just anyone to the beauty of a rose, .. especially someone who doesn't like roses.

What would you think of someone insulted by a spherical Earth? A heliocentric model?
What if someone found the idea that they weren't an animal to be insulting?

I would say they are very religious, burdened with a lot of indoctrinations. If someone got insulted because I told them they were not animals, .. well, I would probably throw them a nice juicy bone to show them I mean peace.

[arian]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

DI, I am so sorry I missed this post, besides where you keep insisting for me to prove God, prove God, you made some interesting comments, especially in your summary.
Again, I am sorry, and unless you address these points again, I will try to go back and comment on them.

Besides having to look up words, I'm slow. So please my friend bear with me?

[arian]

[Replying to post 72 by arian]

Why would that be insulting? Please elaborate.

Why is it an insult to my human intelligence to be labeled an animal, specifically from the ape family, .. a chimp? Because I have Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The Creator, and He created us in His image, not an animals. Yes, our body was created of dust just like stones, trees, and every other inanimate objects were, but I don't claim my ancestors were made in the image of stone. But I guess that does explain why religions create and worship gods made of stone!

Moderator Comment

You have claimed several times that you have 'Undeniable Scientific Evidence of the Creator." Making such claims as strongly as you have requires, in this forum, substantiation. Either mention that 'undeniable proof' in the body of the post in which you make your claim, or link to the post in which such proof is found. Don't claim to have such proof without providing either the proof, a link to said proof, or a mention of where to find it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Thanks dianaiad, and this is not a challenge, actually I'm glad you mentioned it for everyone's sake.

To answer everyone else so we may get back on topic, and stop those trying to derail the topic, please see;

Page 7, Post 62 .. and all them answers (some very long answers) to comments after that, all the way to the present page so I won't have to repeat myself.

Thank you again Dianaiad.

[Clownboat]

Nothing, depending how you cook them they usually taste great. But if you believe your children and relatives are animals, it may cause confusion and Grandma might stuff apples in their mouth and try to throw the children in the oven. It is critical to know which ones are animals, and which are humans created in Gods image.

This is interesting. Please expand on the idea that you might get confused and cook one of your children if you were to accept our biological classification as being an "animal".

Kindly walk us through how this would take place in your mind.
Start with looking at one of your children, then all of a sudden you accept the biological classification that we are animals.
Please walk us through how you get from that to cooking them.
Thanks,

Arian, please, please, please don't ever cook a child. Not even if you accept that they are animals nor if a god concept were to ever ask you to do it (like Abraham). Cooking children should be something we inherently know not to do IMO, so if you ever struggle with this like you suggest you might (over a biological classification of all things), please reconsider and leave the child un-cooked.