Can Science Prove Or Disprove The Existence of God?

Continuing with Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer’s assumption that the human body is not intelligently designed because we have things like sore feet which to him demonstrates that a designer would not have created a foot which would get sore. Previously, we went through how intelligent designed built machines eventually break down over time and have problems. This does not mean that those machines were not created with a mind!

We also went over how many negative mutations causes a loss in information which leads such things as aging, sickness and death much like human machines eventually run down and are not longer functional and the only way those machines could remain functional over time would be intelligent intervention!

Unlike  Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer’s assumption, operational science has revealed the human foot to be a marvel of engineering! The foot has arches and a series of bones which allows one to either pound the gridiron or balance tip-toed for hours. You would be absolutely amazed at the design features that are highly complex, integrated into tissue that know as to be bone!

The foot has not one but two arches that support the weight of the body and provide important leverage when walking. What keeps the structure and arrangement of the bones together is ligaments and tendons that form these arches. These arches are not rigid; they yield when weight is placed upon the foot and spring back when lifted.

The foot is what one would call the humblest member of man’s anatomy.  Its five toes is intelligently constructed with 26 separate bones of various sizes and shapes which bound together by a system. It has a complex array of muscles along with a supplied network of fibers and blood vessels. The different bones articulate in gliding joints, giving the foot a degree of elasticity and a limited amount of motion!

Just like steel cables enabling a bridge to carry up a certain amount of weight, likewise arches are held in place and supported by a complex network of strong muscles to carry the weight of the body. But the foot is even more complex than your average bridge. Would you say, the golden gate bridge evolved? Of course you wouldn’t! But Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer would assume a more intricate mechanism such as the foot did because he thinks someone could design it without a person getting a sore foot!

The design of the foot has been reproduced billions of times in every human birth with exactly the same shape and form (barring any birth defects) with the exact same number of tendons and nerves.

We move on to one the most highly specialized and highly engineered parts of the human body and that is the brain! The brain has a massive amount of cells which everything is seemingly connected to everything else, these connections follow a plan based on purpose, an order that we are only scratching the surface in understanding!

The brain weighs about 3 pounds comprising 97 percent of the entire nervous system. The brain is connected to the upper end of the spinal cord.   The brain is divided into three main parts, one is the large cerebrum, he second being the smaller cerebrum, and the brain stem leading to the spinal cord. The brain has an incredible array of weaving strands (ten billion) known as neutrons. The neutrons defy description! You can’t find anything else in the universe that is more complex than the brain!

The whole mental process consists of neutrons transmitting specific chemicals between each other across gaps. As a result, each cell can communicate with every cell at incredible speeds. In just one cubic millimeter of the brain, there are on billion connections among the cells. What does that mean? It means there are 400 billion synaptic junctions in a gram of brain tissue! The total number rivals the stars in the universe, yet all those connections follow an orderly plan with purpose!

We see order and levels of organization in the human body. We see congruent patterns between cellular organelles and the body organs rather than a mindless process going through trial and error. Engineers use the same general principles in creating gears whether is just a watch or an automobile.

To Be Continued!

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Can Science Prove Or Disprove The Existence of God?

  1. It never ceases to amaze me that these same people who complain about how the humans are design, inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot without realizing it. I.e. using this same paradigm, they never entertain the possibility that if what they say is actually true, then maybe their brains are also too poorly designed to even make these kind of judgment calls.

  2. Or, as a computer science professor once put it, “If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, then we would be too simple to understand our brains.”

  3. Michael, both Latimer and you are wrong, because both rely upon the unsupported assumption: that God produces perfect–or at least optimal–designs. So Latimer’s list of purported design flaws and your list of purported perfections are irrelevant without some showing that optimization of design is a necessary characteristic of God.

    You are not plowing new ground here. Thousands of theologians have been through this territory for centuries. They still return a Scotch verdict.

    The entire weight of your argument in this part is purely an argument from personal incredulity. You don’t understand how these body parts could have evolved, so they must have been designed by God. This is a false dichotomy. How about space aliens? How about Sheldrake’s (naturally occurring) morphogenetic fields? Here’s a big secret: evolutionary biologists aren’t always sure how these things evolved either. But they have a lot of evidence that outlines many features. For example, a change in a single gene can transform a rat’s fingers into a bat’s wing. Tiktaalik and other fossils show gradual transitions from fish fins to amphibian limbs. Every stage of eye development, from a simple light-sensitive skin patch to an eyeball with a lens can be found in some crown animal. Ignorance of the exact path of some evolutionary changes does not overthrow this evidence. If you still think it does, then you will have to show why your ignorance as to the process by which God designed the eyeball is not an argument against his existence.

    We see order and levels of organization in the human body. We see congruent patterns between cellular organelles and the body organs rather than a mindless process going through trial and error. Engineers use the same general principles in creating gears whether is just a watch or an automobile.

    Mindless processes can in fact can create order and levels of organization. Freezing water changes its disordered state to ordered ice crystals. Ice discs (q.v.) can form in front of your eyes as perfect circles in slowly moving chaotic cold water. Thoroughly mixed rocks in a field will organize themselves so that the big ones are on top and the small ones are all below them. Polymers are organized on one level as small groups of atoms, and on another level as a compound such as diamond, graphite, or silicones. Quarks organize themselves into particles, particles organize themselves into atoms, atoms organize themselves into chemical compounds chemical compounds organize themselves into crystals, crystals organize themselves into rocks, and so forth.

    BTW, there are at least three gross errors of biology in this post. Negative mutations do not cause a loss of information in the genome; they may even increase it. The brain does not connect “everything to everything else”; the connections are quite specific, and limited. There are no “congruent patterns” between organelles and organs; you made that up.

    To Be Continued!

    Please don’t.

    Unless you can come up with an argument that has not been thoroughly thrashed by thousands of theologians over eons of effort.

  4. To answer the question of the blog title: one can certainly try.
    See the books of Victor Stenger, for example.

    Obviously such proof is scientific proof, but I’m afraid Michael still doesn’t know what that is …

  5. Obviously such proof is scientific proof, but I’m afraid Michael still doesn’t know what that is …

    The word used is “prove” not provide “proof.” What rebuttals to Stenger have you read Eelco?

  6. Mindless processes can in fact can create order and levels of organization.

    And you know they are mindless by which repeated lab experiments exactly? Provide links for your gentle readers.

  7. Eelco,

    Does Victor Stenger for example, does he understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? As far as evolutionary proof, that will touched upon, and compare that with creationism…

  8. @Chazing: do you have problems with your English ?

    I did not use the word ‘provide’ anywhere. As for the word proof, look it up in a dictionary, I guess.

  9. @Chazing: do you have problems with your English ?

    Nope, but you seem to. And the question again was:

    What rebuttals to Stenger have you read Eelco?

  10. Notice gentle readers, how direct questions are answered bio-evo style.

    Direct question: does he understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?

    Answer: Michael, read Stenger for yourself. Pretty good stuff.

  11. @Chazing: my English is perfectly fine. Looked up the word ‘proof’ in the dictionary yet ?

    And my earlier reference to Victor Stenger was a just that: a reference. I’m not going to baby-sit Michael and read Stenger for him: the books are readily available for all to read by themselves.

    The question itself is odd, anyway. “Chemical details behind macroevolution” ? This does not make any sense at all … so *for that reason* you won’t find it in Stenger’s books. Or in any books anywhere. Macroevolution is not a chemical process …

  12. Macroevolution is not a chemical process …

    Why do bio-evos always insist on ignoring the obvious? Life is chemistry and so is your supposed macro-evolution. There is no way around that.

  13. Eelco, evolution needs to account for the chemistry of life also known as abiogenesis (how life came from non-life). This has yet to be done thus evolution is not scientific. Bio-evos are biological evolutionists, people who think that evolution only pertains to biology. Given that biology is the lowest of the natural sciences, that’s pretty rich.

  14. Oh dear … your really have no clue about evolution, biology, or science in general.
    The stuff you say here is just silly.

  15. Hint: I’m an astronomer working on the evolution of galaxies, amongst others.

  16. Chazing, such silly insults, which are complete nonsense as well, are not getting you anywhere. So far you have shown not to understand what the word evolution means, be it in biology (evolution of species), astronomy (evolution of stars, or galaxies), or anywhere else.

    You’re inventing people you call “bio-evos”, which do not exist (nobody thinks evolution only pertains to biology: lots of things or quantities evolve, obviously), and seems find it necessary to rank a scientific discipline as ‘lowest’. Again, complete nonsense.

  17. So far you have shown not to understand what the word evolution means, be it in biology (evolution of species), astronomy (evolution of stars, or galaxies), or anywhere else.

    I beg to differ. You have shown that you don’t understand chemistry hence your statement:

    Macroevolution is not a chemical process …

    You’re inventing people you call “bio-evos”, which do not exist (nobody thinks evolution only pertains to biology:

    There are some evolutionists who are adamant that (macro)evolution only pertains to biology. Perhaps you don’t know any of them.

    … lots of things or quantities evolve, obviously),

    Give examples.

    and seems find it necessary to rank a scientific discipline as ‘lowest’. Again, complete nonsense.

    Would the typical biologist be able to survive one engineering course? At my uni, the unofficial ranking is that biology and geology are the lowest natural sciences.

  18. You can beg to differ all you like, but that won’t make your statements even remotely sensible.

    And repeating your nonsense won’t make it true either.

  19. I am sorry if I don’t make sense to you though that might be a plus on my part. I don’t understand how anyone would think that repetition would make something true. Something is true only provisionally as per available information, quality of said information and interpretative acumen. Something that evolutionists don’t seem to be able to understand.

  20. “I don’t understand how anyone would think that repetition would make something true.”

    Neither do I, so why are you repeating yourself then ?!?!?

  21. You are so simplistic it hurts. Repetition is to remind you of your claims and get answers which you have not provided. It has nothing to do with truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s