Before getting into this there are also eight factual science descriptions that also undeniably prove evolution is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE to exist in science. With this post, I am entirely describing ONLY the science FACTS that fully counter the standard baloney that there is no science that can prove God exists. Real science is that God is provable by science, and the natural selection and evolution is also factually proven to be scientifically impossible, and BOTH being fully and undeniably all by science.

As for proving God's existence, there are other ways that I can and will provide, but in this thread I will provide the true science concept of "Directional formation". And, directional formation is obviously observable science fact that is so ultra-incredibly easy to understand that it is absurd to even think of denying the science facts involved.

The foundational thinking is seen in the following example.

If a company was going to build for the first time a new object they were then going to call a Buick, but before even one car or anything even like that was even known, something unique needed to be accomplished first. To point out what that is, let's put an object on the ground in the general area of where what would eventually be a Buick plant where they are made, but aren't yet because no one even has the foggiest idea what they are yet. The point is you need to set your mind into the factual evolution viewpoint situation of initially being totally clueless about anything at all like or similar to the idea of a Buick.

At this point of science truth and fact, directional formation is then a reasoning process of going in a developing direction. The point in our Buick example is that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE or a Buick to even be thought of to be made unless and until someone THINKS of going in the ultra-complex direction of making one. And, in truth, it is impossible for nothing to go in a directional formation direction.

So, the original thinking part of going in a particular direction is one part of this. A second and totally impossible situation also involves the FACT that all of the foundational components in the universe are FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to be started without incredible amounts of another type of directional formation also occurring. And, that is that there are a total blockade of science foundational objects that are scientifically impossible for evolution or natural selection to overcome. It is also solid, undeniable fact that it takes directional formation entirely to be able to accomplish every single one of those items, and those items are equired fully to be in place for every single following thing that comes in any later assembly of everything that exists in reality.

This second part is the huge amount of energy and directional intent it takes to make atoms bond in their cores, and the ultra-complexity of the entire design of the atoms so they self-operate by themselves.

It is a FACT that nuclei of atoms have like-charged protons in them and it takes "intent" and "force" to cause the objects in every single atom thatt exists to be compressed and bound together. And, for all diehards, quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage it is, and I can and will provide the full, factual science that describes every single thing about how science exists in formation of all elements in the periodic table and how atom nuclei are forced together in real science instead of the ignorant quantum mechanics slop. Believe it, it's dead-on right fact about that being able to fully be done right in front of any nose that wants to see the factual science involved.

In the end here, it is absolute, solid, science FACT that there is observable science fact of full "directional formation" in every single thing that exists in the universe, and the universe itself that fully and factually proves the science law it is. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the foundational objects exists WITHOUT directional formation. THAT is factual and undeniable science truth.

It also FACTUALLY proves that an extremely intelligence was and is fully involved in all of the foundational things, and without the ultra-high intelligence involved it is THEN scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for anything to exist at all.

NO Directional formation means factually no formation, and that means nothing can exist. And, this is not anywhere near being just opinion, but solidly and totally science truth and fact. And, anyone stating now to the contrary is then doing so in complete science hypocrisy and denial of true science observation, analysis and truth.

For further information, I know factually how matter came into existence from the start point of "NOTHING", and also how atoms self-operate in their continuous running, and how "living life" is also accomplished by using the non-living atom and sub-atomic atomic objects. So, if I need to get into the real science down deep and fully that is exactly where I can and will go in proving the ultra-complexity that exists where it is factually also IMPOSSIBLE for the "just-dumb-luck" slop of evolution and natural selection don't have one chance in 386 trillion of making even a dent in the real science involved.

One last fact is that I can describe real science that is FAR ABOVE world-class physics and other sciences, and where the ULTRA-SCIENCE of God's level of science exists. His science is light years above any and all scientists on this meager planet, and I can prove every single shred of this statement made. And, anyone not believing the fact, just try me.

Incoming wall of text crits Doodler for 666 points of damage.

Doodler dies.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

I would think this would be moved to another section....

__________________
I'm a professional, please don't try this at home...

I know that science sometimes uses ordinary terms to mean something specific and technical, but I don't think I've ran across those before. Is "total garbage" something like total entropy?

How about /dev/null ?

Moved from Astronomy to ATM. Y'all have fun now.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

This should be interesting, but will likely last something less than a page of "discussion" before being dismissed for what it is, a blatantly religious tirade. Any more fire and brimstone in a run like that, and the Leonid meteors will be out of a job.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Steve, I know FACTUALLY that unless you read the rules of this board pertaining to topics such as religion and politics your stay here will be short and unproductive. And that's no slop!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

so uh... who or what created God?

@OP, your basis on what is possible is very elementary, go read up and learn something.

Sorry to say you have come to the wrong place. Go hit up GLP or some other Woo-Woo/creationist site.

__________________

You are welcome to report StevenCrum if he violates the forum rules, but it's impolite to publicly announce that you expect him to do so. (So far as I'm concerned, he's not over the line yet.)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

That has been my argument for as long as I knew about "God". God couldn't have come from nothing!

Oh wait, he is everything, riiiight.... In that case God is also my toilet, which I take a crap in every day.

__________________

Noted, my apologies. I am going to go now so I don't get myself into serious trouble...

__________________

If there's no evolution, if life makes no change without intelligent direction, if no process can occur without a guiding hand, the observer begs to question why so many variations on a theme exist.

Wouldn't a perfect deity get it right the first time?

Explain supermassive stars. They don't last long enough to allow life to rise up. What purpose do they serve, be it that they are intelligently designed?

Why do stars then die in the first place? Wouldn't an intelligently designed star not burn out? You'd think in a universe designed to promote life, you'd make its most abundant harbors eternal, would you not? What good is a universe where perpetuality is an impossibility? What cruel bugger would put something as devastating as entropy into play?

What rationally thinking intelligence would create a star system with merely a 4 billion year window of viability over the course of a 10 billion year stellar life cycle? Seems a substantial waste to create a system with only a 40% operational efficiency.

What purpose to gas giant planets serve? They're huge, not very hospitable, and tend to cause problems for potential life bearing worlds when they migrate inward. Something God screwed up? This deity is looking awfully imperfect here. Sure it could be argued that they help regulate the orbits of terrestrial worlds, but if this deity had half a brain, they'd design their worlds to maintain their own orbits. And if its protecting us from the remnant debris, what omnipotent creator would finish his Solar System Kit and leave extra parts lying around. Very sloppy.

Its a mess out there, and we've not even touched on biological systems, because if there is an intelligent designer, I want to talk to this son of a gun about a few parts upgrades.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

To Murff

Concerning your "this should be somewhere else", it is factually science, and this is a science board.

This is the Emperor's New Clothes argument... "It's so obvious that you must understand, unless you're incredibly stupid." Doesn't work here.

Sorry, your assumption is incorrect.

As an example, take the photocopier. This was an idea in someone's mind long before anyone thought about how you'd make one. Every invention follows this same pattern... Think about something that would be really nice to have, then find a way to make it.

It's called "imagination." Children have it in great abundance; they spend a lot of time imagining things they do not know how to make.

This sounds like an argument based on the Arrow of Time; that is, Time moves in only one direction. Since that's a basic tenent of science, I fail to see how it disproves science.

Now you've presented the My Mind's Made Up, Don't Confuse Me With The Facts argument. This also doesn't fly here.

Now that would be refreshing! Please start providing.

Again, you are arguing the Arrow of Time.

I see lots of posturing, arm waving, and CAPITAL LETTERS, but nothing that could be called scientific fact.

I think you will need to do this. So far, you haven't even started.

Considering the scales involved, 1 in 386 trillion is as close to a sure thing as the Universe has.

Okay, I'm calling you out. You've offered at least three times so, start presenting your proof.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Science is subject to disproof. Can't subject an "ultrascientific intelligence" to disproof, therefore, its not science.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Will this be the end of Believe?

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

[pulls up chair and grabs a six pack] I love threads like this.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Why do I cringe when I see that sort of thing, loaded with caps. Really all it needed was a lot of bold red letters in size 12 and it'd have been set. *sigh*

so uh... who or what created God?

What was before the Big Bang? If God was responsible for the creation of the Universe be it triggering the Big Bang or something else, then it stands to reason He is outside of our universe, and thus our time. Hence the question "What was before God?", or "who created God?" is as totally meaningless as "what was before the Big Bang?" Not to get into religion here, but the Bible does support a view of God being outside of Time itself, and therefore neither having a begining or an end. (I'd also note this was even sort of prior to Einstein's revelations about time/space being inseparate. )

I love threads like this.

I don't, so I'm going elsewhere now.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I'm with you Captain. I'm not even gonna bother trying to get into this, just sit back and watch. I'm thinking of Eta C's sig, the Pauli quote. I'm also inclined to think that all the explanations in the world are not gonna matter.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

What he indicated was that your views don't reflect those of mainstream science and should therefore be in our Against the Mainstream section. I agree, which is why I moved this thread there. When you've convinced a majority of astrophysicists of your views, we can move it back.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

You think you'll live that long?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Jees, I dunno; he's using some pretty sciency terms there...
I reckon he's onto something! After all Steve is using: which sounds so much more manly, and emlpoys muscly sounding terms like and and and the terribly exciting, all new, .
So don't mess with this guy - I think he may be related to George Crum.....

StevenCrum,
I too would like to see your evidence to support this proof.

You mention repeatedly about "directional formation". Would exactly does that mean, I have never heard such a term? The closest I can come to is directional solidification.

You state that "quantum mechanics slop is totally proven to be the total garbage". Could you show us this proof? Quantum mechanics is extremely well tested and to date seems to be a well proven theory. It is also the basis for many practical devices, including the computer chips that you are using. Are you saying that all of microelectronics is based on an incorrect theory?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Let's start with this claim. What makes you claim that evolution is directional to a specific end? Your analogy implies that a Buick is the desired end product, but this shows a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is - effectively you are creating a Strawman argument by introducing a distorted version of evolution and then attacking that. Any claim that evolution has been deliberately 'leading up' to Homo sapiens over the past 3.5 billion years is anthropocentric hubris at best, and dishonestly misleading at worst.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

No, given the premise, it was a valid question. The assertion is: Y exists, therefore X must have created it. If this is so, then by the same logic, something must have created X. If you are going to exempt X from the chain of logic then you must also exempt Y. That is, if a creator can be exempted from creation than so can the universe. The existence of the universe only demonstrates the existence of the universe, not some supposed extrauniversal being or beings. Science cannot (at yet, at least) speak to this subject, even whether asking "what is the origin of the universe?" is a valid question. So this is a matter of belief, not science.

Yeah. I could get into arguments like this twenty years ago, but it never changes, so now I just point people to http://www.talkorigins.org/

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Belief in God is faith and religion, not science. I'm a Christian, so I believe that God created the universe. That means, however, that God is not a product of this universe. And that means that the nature of his existence is beyond the realm of science.

I think it's also a travesty claim that it's such an obvious scientific fact that evolution is false. This would mean one of two things. Either that every archaeologist, anthropologist, biologist, physiologist in the world is utterly and completely stupid, or that they are all involved in a worldwide conspiracy.

If you believe that they're all stupid, then I assume that you put no stock in modern medical technology and modern pharmaceuticals.

If you believe they're all involved in a worldwide conspiracy, well that's just whacked.

You appear to use the term "science" without understanding what it means. You call things that aren't scientific 'science truth or fact', refer to things as 'scientifically impossible' (as opposed to regular impossible things?) and the underlying premise of directional formation is not logically validated based on your example, thus nullifying the remainder of your arguement. For example the musings of Leonardo Da Vinci show that he proposed inventions that were impossible for hundreds of years, such as the helicopter.

Also, your directional formation concept does not appear to be a scientific hypothesis.

Also, the arguement does not support the existance of God. 'Evolution wrong' does not equal 'God proven to exist'. Many scientists are Christian and have no qualms with evolution, science and faith can coexist, as hadji had noted above.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.