Nnnnnnope lol.

Not that I am aware of. But if you were the almighty God creator of everything. Would you allow mere humans the ability to figure you out? Before you answer keep in mind your wanting people to believe and worship you with faith not out of fear because they know for a fact your real. Without that our free will would be meaningless because we be like the angels who spend their existence doing nothing but serving God. Life would be meaningless as we would do nothing but please God. As it is we have a choice to believe or not but what if you knew where would your choice be?

EASY Question, and simple answer. When you look at a car, you ask, "who is the maker?" When you see a painting, you ask, "who is the painter?" and it would be absolutely crazy or rediculious to claim a car does NOT have a maker and it just arrived able to drive with it't technichal qualitities. If you see a beautiful painting, you would never believe it just was painted without anyone painting it! What if someone said the car and painting JUST HAPPENED or over time was make, or it was a Big Bang! Crazy right? PROOF OF THESE THINGS HAVING A MAKER IS THE PRODUCT THEMSELVES. So, look into the mirror, and then say there is NO MAKER! Sound silly doesn't it?

No, there is not. Evidence would negate "faith" which is currently the only thing that the UberChristians are currently grasping hold of.

I like to think that the planet we are standing on is pretty good proof.

Yes, we at present do not have the technology, data base or mind set for it but things are moving forward. In Genesis "god" infused it's essence with the clay of the earth. To me "essence" in 21st century terms means DNA, which should be different from earth origin DNA. God or Alien is another debate.

No, but look at the design of plants. They are seemingly designed to take the death of space and turn it into life giving oxygen. They run on the energy from the sun which must be designed to warm the coldness of dead space so life can grow. Plants must have been created so they can produce the oxygen so protein based creatures can breathe and feed. Having this thought sells me on the fact that the design of birth of stars to the formation of planets to the creation of suitable life planets to animals up to intelligent life-all of it is probably done over and over all throughout the galaxies which comes to my conclusion that- SOMETHING designed the way the universe creates life. God, buddah, allah, probably non existant. But perhaps there is something that perhaps wanted an animal that can take care of the planet it was created on. Perhaps earth had enough life form evolving skills to create an animal that could understand how 'it' created everything. I'd still call it god, but hell. I'm just a gay Ex-TV star

Is there one, single piece of testable evidence that clearly points that there isn't a creator god?

Yes. A slice of toasted bread with the image of Jesus on one side and peanut butter and jelly on the other.

There is alot of evidence of life after death, including videos of "ghosts". I know alot of them are fake, but some are genuine.

Some say there is - but I haven't found it myself yet. Sorry.

Testable... maybe not. But just for the record, the lunar astronauts all had a change of heart on their way home from the moon. Example: "Boy we're lucky to be here, why do people complain about the earth? We are living in the Garden of Eden!" --Capt. Alan Bean, USN Ret.

No, there isn’t just one, there are thousands of pieces of testable evidence that clearly point to a creator God. Ariel Roth said: “God never performed a miracle to convince an atheist, because His ordinary works provide sufficient evidence.” Is life itself merely a product of mindless, natural laws? It would take more faith for me to believe that than it does to believe that all life comes from a supreme being with intellect far beyond my own (or yours). When naturalistic biologists assert that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention, it should only have been believed by eighteenth century scientist who didn’t have the technology to investigate the cell and discover its amazing complexity. Today, this naturalistic theory flies in the face of everything we know about natural laws and biological systems. One example of this was when, in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the chemical that encodes instructions for building and replicating all living things. We’ve all seen illustrations of its twisted ladder structure. Anyway, the information found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba is more than the data found in 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica. All that assembled or created itself just by chance without the aid of a Creator? I don’t think so. That’s one. There are thousands more in this category alone. What about the geological formation: Mount Rushmore. What caused it? Were the presidential faces the result of the natural laws of erosion? Nonsense, the faces were the result of years of planning, carving, blasting, sanding and so forth. There was obviously a plan and a creator. Just as its obvious, this is true with the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. There was a Creator involved and He had a plan. Consider this, if we were to put all the individual parts of a 2009 Cadillac, every nut, bolt, piece of glass and plastic into a gigantic plastic bag and then vigorously shake the bag for say, 10,000 years, would a smooth running car be the result? Of course not. The concept of the world or the universe coming into being without an external influence is just as silly. Problems of origin arise only when we have preconceived ideas that don’t fit into a logical equation and we refuse to let go of these ideas. The idea of a Creator is very logical.

There is none and that's ok. If there is a god, why should he/she/it be testable. God could certainly be outside of the realm of any known physical realm that we could test, and assuming for sake of argument, god is all powerful, would have no trouble concealing it's own existence. Lack of proof is not proof of non-existence. I respect believers who simply have faith than the ones who give awful pseudo-scientific arguments or throw terrible logical fallacies out.

If there were proof there would be no point. Life on earth is a trial, with much tribulation...a test of knowledge, wisdom, perspective, love, and faith, and dedication. If it were as easy to PROVE it...there would be no FREE will. But I think each and every person granted with the capability to love is enough. The soul. Theres much more to the bein then the body, for the body is only a tool, the mind memory and function, language and how to figure out things. The soul is actually what is BEHIND all of that, what can SEE beauty...what can SEE the goodness of things, that can UNDERSTAND forgiveness...that can HEAR THE music and the fingers can play it...Its the absolute yin yang inside of you. But it was designed that way. We are NOT an accident, it was INTENTIONAL. we were not random, we were created. This isnt all there is...for this is a small part, there is MUCH more. There is much inside of a person as there is in the universe. Every person has a different world inside of them. its all about their perspective. The soul...the Soul, is something great. A gift. What seperates us from a functioning robot.

No, there isn't. What kind of faith do you need to believe in something proven to you???

yes::: the eyeball. an eyeball is of no use if it is not 100% created, it is of no use without the lense or retina or cones or rods or electricity or the brain interperting what is there. an eyeball that is extremely good at dealing with just the amount of light we deal with here on earth. it opens on que and closes on que it washes out potential impurities, it has the ability to be soft as to not be damaged when you hit your head (fist fight...). it has muscles attached that work to move the eyes not just in one direction but two and allow a third for perspective. it gives attraction with various color schemes, it tells us if we have an allergic reaction (red itchy eyes) or if our kids are high on drugs(yellow eye). it can see under water and in air and up on a mountain without damage. it gives us the ability to read and understand others expressions and move from major danger. it gives us pleasure and the ability to learn 1,000,000,000(guestamate) things in a single glance by telling us what is around and what color and shades if minorly damaged it can fix itself, can give us a release of pain or joy (cry) it gives others a way to see emotions in our "eyes"/ the eye lash is to stop larger items from falling into our eye as well to be minor sensors (like a cat whiskers) and it gives a darker area like simple screen sunglasses. and if you loose an eyelash it will regrow. and you can squint (mechanical choice) to let less light in but it has its own automatic device to let more or less light in. See this is a part of us that was designed, built in with all of its features. an eye that only has .01% of its workability is of no use. it is systems built with other systems built with other systems all encompased with itself. (ask evolutionists) if we have ever seen a "simple eye" or an eye evolving into stage two of 10,000. it doesnt exist. there are eyes that are degressing and some animals even dont need them but this is a taking away of an item not bringing one on. or evolving into an eye. whether its a fisheye or a kangaroo eye, an elephants eye or a squid, or a penguine or a shrimps eye. they are all extremely complicated, and well suited for their enviroment (having double lenses or continual 360deg view or extremely large for seeing in extreme depths or seeing in infrared or whatever it is continually we see that just as "we" create robots with extreme intracacies and abilities for doing the jobs at hand their needed to be a creator to create a designed system a system that was complex and with goals in mind and purpose for the item(eye, liver, backbone, mind, lungs, etc.. alright thats my soapbox. hope you enjoyed. ps THIS IS NOT FACT THAT GOD MADE US THIS IS PROOF THAT GOD MADE US (proof is something that is combined with other continual proof to finally come up with an outcome a belief (evolution or creationism) is "seen proofs and other proofs then put those proofs together to make a("this is how it happened")"

Not to my knowledge - and I've looked HARD!

Does anyone have any real proof that there is no God?

Is there one single piece of testable evidence that you are a self-aware, conscious entity with free will, rather than just a very complex collection of programmed subroutines that simulate the same? Is there one single piece of testable evidence that beauty (in the philosohic sense) exists? Or elegance? Or love? Or for that matter even, REASON? The answer to all of these depends on what you are willing to consider as evidence and what axioms you are willing to accept and work from. I find the evidence for a creator God overwhelming - so overwhelming as to be self-evident. If you don't find it so, that can only be because you don't recognize the evidence as evidence and don't intuitively accept the fundamental axioms. The fact is that no worldview or philosophy can ever be substantiated on the basis of evidence alone. Even "scientific materialism" and secular humanism are utterly unprovable/unverifiable/unfalsifiable. All are beliefs derived from unprovable presuppositions.

As Steven Hawking, one of the three authors, boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning. Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy. The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That's the difference. Some verses that you might be familiar with: The first verse which states, “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth…” The Hebrew words for heavens and Earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time. The universe. Hebrews 11:3 makes it more specific stating, “The universe that we detect was made from that which we cannot detect.” We can make detections within matter, energy, length, width, height and time, but not beyond. Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I'll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.” Einstein was well aware that the term for pressure (P) in the universe is rather tiny compared to the term for mass density (represented by the Greek letter Rho ). It's divided by a huge number - the velocity of light squared. You've got this extremely small number divided by a huge number. This means that for all intents and purposes, we can ignore that “3P/C²” relative to the density. We can drop that term out, and then we have something much simpler to solve. It's still a non-linear differential equation, so it's not all that easy. But Einstein was able to perceive and demonstrate that, according to this equation, the universe not only decelerates, it positively expands. Hence, the Big Bang. How so? pretend that I've got a grenade here in front of me. If I were to pull the pin from the grenade, you'd feel a few effects. One being that the pieces of the grenade would expand outward from the pin. That's positive expansion. Those outwardly expanding pieces of the grenade would inevitably bump into obstacles into this room. When they collide with those obstacles, they slow down. That's deceleration. After a grenade has exploded, a physicist could make measurements of the positions and the velocities of the pieces of shrapnel, and through the equation Velocity = Distance/Time, he could calculate the moment that the pin was pulled on the grenade. We can do the same thing with the galaxies in the universe. We can measure their positions and their velocities and calculate the moment that the “pin” was pulled on the entire universe. As Einstein pointed out, the significance is that the universe has this moment of pin pulling. It has a beginning. Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God. To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. (Good book on Einstein's extensive discussions of religion and theology: Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer -Ed ) God created the universe and God is intelligent. Today, we don't deny that God is personal. Einstein died too soon. Ours is a privileged generation because we have seen the measuring of the universe. The theological significance is that if you can measure the universe, you are measuring the creation. If you can measure the creation, you are measuring the Creator himself. Not all of his characteristics, of course, but many that are theologically significant. What we've discovered in measuring the universe is that the third assumption of Emanuel Kant; that we have infinite time, the universe is static and that we have an infinite supply of building blocks for life isn't true. We proved that the universe isn't static, that time isn't infinite. It's finite. The age of the universe is only 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 seconds (10 to the 18th power). We also discovered that we do not have an infinite supply of building blocks. In fact, we discovered that it takes exquisite design to get any building blocks at all. Molecules, without which, life is impossible. Atoms must be able to assemble in the molecules in order to gain sufficient complexity for life chemistry to proceed. That applies to any conceivable kind of life. Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won't happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There's an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus. Electromagnetism There won't be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life. If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life. Strong Nuclear Force We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics. If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there's no life chemistry. It's impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen. On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it's impossible to make life if all we've got is Hydrogen. How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It's so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe. Mass of the Proton and Neutron We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That's why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons. If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible. If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn't be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible. Electrons With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics. Gravity Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant. It's necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don't form, then clearly life is impossible. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power). Another way of looking at this incredible fine-tuning of the universe in this one characteristic is to compare it with the very best that we humans have achieved. It's not built yet, but towards the end of this year, a machine will come online at Cal Tech. This machine will have the capacity to make measurements to within one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 23rd power). The best machine man has ever designed. But the very best machine that man has ever designed, with all of our money, technology and education, falls one hundred trillion times short of the level of fine-tuning that we see in just this one characteristic of the universe. Astronomers have discovered that the total mass of the universe acts as a catalyst for nuclear fusion and the more massive the universe is, the more efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. If the universe is too massive, the mass density too great, then very quickly all the matter in the universe is converted from Hydrogen into elements heavier than iron, which would render life impossible because the universe would be devoid of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. If the universe has too little mass, then fusion would work so inefficiently that all that the universe would ever produce would be Hydrogen, or Hydrogen plus a small amount of Helium. But there again, the Carbon and Oxygen we need for life would be missing. We can extend this argument of design from the universe to the solar system itself. When we look at the solar system, we discover that we have a heavenly body problem. It's not that easy to get the right galaxy. Life can only happen on late born stars. If it's a first or second-generation star, then life is impossible because you don't yet have the heavy elements necessary for life chemistry. There's a narrow window of time in the history of the universe when life can happen. If the universe is too old or too young, life is impossible. Only spiral galaxies produce stars late enough in their history that they can take advantage of the elements that are essential for life history, and only 6% of the galaxies in our universe are spiral galaxies. Of those 6%, you must go with galaxies that produce all of the elements that are essential for life. It's not that easy. Besides Hydrogen and Helium, the other elements are made in the cores of super giant stars. Super giant stars burn up quickly; they're gone in a just a few million years. When they go through the final stages of burning up their fuel, they explode ashes into outer space, and future generations of stars will absorb those ashes. When those stars go through their burning phase, they will take that heavy element ash material. This time when they explode, they make a whole bunch of material, capable of forming rocky planets and supporting life chemistry. But we want these supernovae exploding early in the history of the galaxy. We don't want them going off now. If the star Cereus goes Super Nova, we're in serious trouble because it's only eight light years away. It would exterminate life on our planet. We observe in our galaxy that there was a burst of Super Nova explosions early in its history, but it tapered off to where it isn't a threat to life that is now in existence. The Super Nova explosions took place in the right quantity and in the right locations so that life could happen here on Earth. What does location have to do with it? Life is impossible in the center of our galaxy, or in the heel of our galaxy. It's only possible at a distance 2/3 from the center of our galaxy. The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we don't want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there aren't enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed. There's one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that's Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. It's like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing. Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasn't yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. It's an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine. We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry. A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994

you probably do not read the bible, or care for any of the passages. But the bible states that he once said "blessed are those who believe without seeing." ofcoarse your gonna believe if you see him. its obvious.but yeah i really dont wanna get into it. Just hope one day, you'd be more open minded towards god.I hope one day you'll meet someone with a lot more knoledge of him in your life, hopefully one day you'll feel the love we feel towards god I may not be able to show you exact proof of his existance...but i know that its impossible to love something or someone that isnt truly there. i hope this makes sense to you. This is a really sensitve subject for me beacause it brakes my heart to know someone who doesnt believe, so if you do not agree with what im saying please dont be mean. X-)

Yes, many tests have shown that the basic mechanism of biological evolution (mutation) does not have the ability to have produced 100 million species, with billions of vastly different complex subsystems from a single cell, or (which admittedly is a whole other subject) that that single cell living could have become animated by natural causes.   Many test have revealed that mutations only cause relatively minor changes, within a *somehow* defined limit. The unintended and unexpected results of these tests show a consistency with a creator God making separate "kinds" of creatures, which the ability to produce other varieties of those "kinds", but without the ability to create other "kinds."

1) "Ross adopts the view that there are two "records" of revelation from God – the Bible and nature – which both offer accurate knowledge and each of which can correct misunderstanding of the other. Moreover, he argues that the Bible is the only scientifically accurate religious text when interpreted contextually. Ross and his associates are formally engaged in proposing an alternate, scientifically testable model for the formation of the universe, earth, and life itself that accounts for both scientific and religious (particularly Christian) explanations for each. The model he proposes makes certain predictions about the shape of future discoveries in cosmology, biology, and related sciences, and Ross wants his model to be judged alongside other models in its predictive success. He has not published this model in peer-reviewed scientific literature, but he outlines the basic components of the model and provides associated predictions for future scientific research in his book Origins of Life (2005, coauthored with Fazale Rana) and Creation as Science (Navpress, 2006). Richard Smalley, 1996 Nobel prize winner in chemistry, said of the former book, "Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow."[5][dead link] PZ Myers criticized predictions in an online summary of the model as "sublimely silly, trivial, vaguely stated, or perfectly compatible with actual evolutionary biology." The primary apologetical method used by Ross and Reasons to Believe is evidentialist in nature and attempts to show that the probability of the universe forming in such a way as to allow it to generate life as we know it is too improbable to be due to random chance. Thus, he posits a creator outside spacetime who purposefully controlled and directed the creation of the universe and created life. (Cosmology has traditionally dealt with the idea that the universe has finely tuned parameters which cannot be significantly altered without destroying the possibility of life under the rubric of the anthropic principle.)" "Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. Ross instead asserts that these days (translated from the Hebrew word yom) are historic, distinct, and sequential, but not 24 hours in length nor equal in length. He agrees with the scientific community at large that the vast majority of YEC arguments are pseudoscience, and finds any version of intelligent design inadequate that doesn't provide a testable hypothesis which can make verifiable and falsifiable predictions." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist%29 2) "Just because this or that theory is not yet toppled, it doesn't mean that it will not be by some future visionary. It is clear, then, that God cannot be proven empirically, and it seems less than helpful to want to do it. By its nature, faith in God cannot be reduced to empirical evidence. Saying that God can be proven empirically is making a claim to some ultimate power of information/evidence that cannot possibly be made. Faith communities are better off not subjecting God to the humiliations of empirical evidence." Source and further information: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_empirical_evidence_proves_God_exists 3) "Some religious apologists offer the supernatural nature of God as one explanation of the inability of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, the hypothesis of a supernatural God would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis, outside the domain of scientific investigation. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is beyond the domain of science. Proponents of intelligent design (I.D.) believe there is empirical evidence for irreducible complexity pointing to the existence of an intelligent creator, though their claims are challenged by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. In God, Science and Mind, Dennis Polis argues that the theory of evolution itself is strong evidence of intentionality in nature. Some scientifically literate theists have noted that natural laws and universal constants seem "fine-tuned" to favor the development of life (see Anthropic principle). However, reliance on phenomena which have yet to be explained naturally has been pejoratively equated to the God of the gaps argument. Logical positivists, such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer viewed any talk of gods as literal nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_god#The_problem_of_the_supernatural

test: this is a test on the "geologic table" and what it is. test, take a giant swimming pool (big) and put all different kinds of rocks (small and big) gravels dirt and anyother kind of material found on earths near surface. Then take a bunch of animals (reptiles fish amphibians birds mammals,molusks plants)etc. now take that giant swimming pool and let it rain on it for 40 days and 40 nights dont stop just keep on raining (im sure a good terenchal rain not a little sprinkls) and make sure to rock the swimming pool back and forth (the word "aswage" is used in the bible there) and let it rock for 1 yearish then take a core sampling or start to cut away the layers and report the findings. verdict you will find everything assorted from top to bottom according to density (if more dense at bottom if lesser dense closer to top) if this is rocks or soil or animals or plants they will be assorted all by density. findings you will find that all the minerals will be formed into perfect layers and layers inbetween those layers (go to grand canyon and youll see them on the walls or go to any mountain where it is cut out a grove through the limestone and you will see layers of layers of limestone and layers of limestone inbetween them. you will also notice that all the animals will be asorted according to density (especially bone density dinosaurs are still alive so you can use the crocodiles and other "non evolved dinos". you will find mollusks near the bottom with fish above them and reptiles and amphibians above them, you will find that mammals are above them and birds above that...(before you say anything) their also will be soeme animals that will be mixed in amongst other layers. some mammals and birds near the reptile layers and some reptiles near the mammalian and avian sections, but for the most part they will be sorted out by layers. . this is just as the geologic table is formed with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense material on top... now does this say that it was done like this...NO it says that an observation to a question (why are their certain layers and animals in layers) and gives a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis to see if it would work out that way... this is just like the hypothesis of the "evolutionary geologic table" stating that as animals died off they would be in that layer and as time went by more "dust from meteorites" and such would start to fill in around that creature and this would make layers of similar sediment. until we get what we see now. their is no problem seeing the world that way if you want but realize that they are both testable and provable and retestable(thats real science) but they can not answer how it happened because no one has a videocamera from there 6000 or 60,000,000 years ago and thus they can only stay as theories that seem to fit the bill. this is why it is difficult for either side to "PROVE" their side but we can have millions of "proofs" that seem to fit the bill, especially when we realize our biasists of were we raised with "millions and millions of years ago..." or were we raised with "In the begging GOD created..." we all have biasists. and thats ok just as scientists we need to seperate out theory vs fact. theory is this is here now ?how did it get that way...well this could have happened and then try to replicate that (evolution or creationism...vs fact 2 apples put into a basket with three more apples gives me 5 apples 2+3=5 or I add Oxygen and Hydrogen and have an electric spark between them they burn (rocket fuel) or I drop a ball, I drop a ball, I drop a ball, yep I can test gravity. thats science even if we dont have all the resources or right answers. evolution or creationism is based on prior beliefs of how the world existed or became... hope that makes sense.

I gave you a smidgeon of the innumerable proofs that He exists and I was shot down with the comment that the proofs I gave were not valid. I'll ask again, what do YOU say is the definition of a "valid proof" of something? If you're not willing to answer that, we can't go any further. I for one, am willing to pursue this to a logical conclusion.

This...

Yes. All that you have to do is die. If you are still around, God did it. If not, darn.

I read many of the answers, but am amazed at how anyone really believes that mere words can prove the unknown.

No, there is not. He leaves it up to us to use our intelligence to figure this out. Figuring everything out is not always the best thing to do. Faith is sometimes better. Do you want to know your spouse is faithful to you by having her/him tailed 24/7 by a PI? God is known by faith, and there is not one single piece of testable evidence that clearly points to Him. Many believe that when a human looks at the earth he sees the wonders of creation that lead to a conclusion it must have been made by God. But testable evidence, no. Sorry.

There is none, never will be either. Faith proves nothing, never has and never will. The bible proves absolutely nothing and the only thing proven about the bible is it was written. You want god? Be your own god and believe in yourself because believing in imaginary gods is a waste of time as is praying. "Eat a big plate of jambalya, head off to the can, and meditate on this, "defecating is more productive than praying." [Todd Adamson] .

Everything, and the knowing is a gift from God.

The Human Brain Science knows that the human brain has the capacity for storing memories that will take at least 10,000 years to fill. What evolutionary pressure could result in the capability, or need, to have that much storage capacity to far exceeds the ability of the human body? Did human once live that long, but no longer? Why doesn't our supposed closest relative, in the theory of evolution, the apes have a capability even close to that, with only the capacity to last their normal lifetimes? According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the human brain “is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person’s lifetime.” (1976 Edition, Volume 12, page 998) The book How the Brain Learns, by David A. Sousa, states: “For all practical purposes, the capacity of the brain to store information is unlimited.”—Page 78, Second Edition, copyright 2001. The Human Body Science knows that there is no medical reason why humans age and die. Once a person reaches full maturity, age 24 for females, and age 30 for males, every cell in the human body replaces itself over a seven year time period. Some much faster, such as skin cells, while others are slower, such as the brain. On a cellular level, we never get older than 7 years of age. In his book The Dream of Eternal Life, Mark Benecke notes: “Nearly all of the body is renewed several times during the course of a life. . . . After about seven years, we are new people in the truest sense of the word.” At one time, did humans live forever, but now don't?

Creation. Nature, the universe. Without a Creator there can be no creation.

The bacterial Flagella motor - works exactly like an outboard, could not have evolved as each piece is useless without the others. I feel I shot myself om the foot, there :(

this was supposed to be a comment to another answer. ignore

A man flips a fair coin 100 times in succession and all 100 come up heads. The determinist says, "It's fate!" The nihilist says, "It's chance!" The humanist says, "It's skill!" The solopsist says, "It's an illusion!" And the Theist says, "It's Providence!" No power or science on Earth can prove which one is right -- though the man's inability to repeat it would rule out humanism as an explanation. For me, I'd say the evidence points towards an artist and not mere blind naturalistic processes. The fact that for the whole of human history the moon has been just far enough from the Earth that it has the same angular diameter as the Sun (in truth, both vary ever so slightly, but not enough to be visible to the naked eye) to me speaks of the clear handiwork of an Artist as there's absolutely no natural correlation between an equally sized sun and moon (as viewed by men on the surface of the Earth) and the existance of intelligent life capable of pondering and being awed by the heavens, and the odds of the two happening together by chance are utterly preposterous.

If anything at exists, then therefore there must have been a Creator. "Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.") ~ http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ "1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. 2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it? The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. 3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it? 4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior. Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it 5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. 6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us. Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father. What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.17 Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us." ~ http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Is there a sing piece of testable evidence that points to God's absense? No.

I've gone through and read all the "answers" it's amazing, how some folks will defiantely NOT answer a question. No. No there isn't. Despite their bible's assurances to the contrary. http://godisimaginary.com/

Where did humanity start? There's no factual answer to that question. There are a million and one theories, and any of them could be correct really.

What sort of tests do you have in mind? And by whom? If you are only willing to accept criteria and methods that preclude supernatural causes a priori, then you are simply begging the question. The facts are: “the universe” is the sum total of all matter-energy, space-time, and the patterns of all material processes and phenomena; the universe exists; the universe did not always exist: space-time, matter-energy, and “nature” all came into existence together; scientific instruments and methods can only study “the universe”; therefore, scientific instruments and methods are ipso-facto blind to anything and everything that might have caused the beginning of the universe or continue to affect it from outside of itself. Consequently, there can be no testable (by which I presume you mean scientific) evidence of anything before that point, nor can there be any scientific evidence of anything outside of “the universe”. As a creator God, if such exists, is by definition external and prior to the physical universe, the techniques, devices, and methods of the material sciences are therefore incapable of detecting God, at least directly. But furthermore, also by definition, God (if He exists) is the governing force/principle behind all natural phenomena. (That these typically follow mathematically elegant patterns is an aesthetic argument for the existence of God, rather than an argument that God is unnecessary.) But if Nature/natural law is just the manifestation of God’s general will, His standing orders so to speak, then there is no way of isolating a God-caused phenomena from a non-God-caused phenomena, since – by definition – all phenomena are God-caused. Consequently, the techniques, devices, and methods of the material sciences are also incapable of detecting (or rather distinguishing) God indirectly. So, if the only tests you are willing to accept are ones out of the material sciences, then you have begged the question. You might as well challenge people to prove Lincoln existed using only a weathervane and a stopwatch.

Has anyone ever thought of a single criterion which a "god" would meet in order to qualify as being a god? For what it's worth, if you reduce the human body into its seemingly random constituents on the microscopic level, you would be left with something that would seem a simple input-output machine. Whether or not quantum mechanics has any effect on human action is irrelevant: the same forces would be at work on a larger scale as well in all seemingly indeterminate cases. If we think of the universe this way, the there isn't much difference between a human body and the giant conglomeration of matter (or "tied up dimensions" for string theorists) present at the beginning of the big bang. If that is what you want to label as the greatest of all possible things in the universe, than it is by definition the creator of the universe. Whether or not the "creator" is "intelligent" or not is a philosophical discussion which has no scientific basis.

23skidoo sorry brother i was off topic for awhile. there is computer simulation of the origin and end of the universe. basicly a force that had to "create" and sent into motion the known universe. i saw it years ago when i was in college and i am tring to find it. to be honest i am not even sure where to start cause i dont remeber the name of it. I am not even sure if it still would be applicable to todays use. with all the new theories of quantum physics punching holes in the theories of astrophysics. but, i am looking and will do my best to present it you.

No, there is not.

No, because the concept of testable evidence is a question that comes from the realm of science. . The idea of an omniscient, all powerful, God is one in which scientists might believe (I do, for example) but which can never be proven true. . Because simply by nature of who He is, the possibility of the results being skewed is always present.

Scientific discovery is not sufficiently advanced to create such a test.

oops..god hates me for making a booboo.. off to hell I go..oh well..

other than miracles i dont think so. theres bodies of saints who are 100 years old and still look alive with no preservitaves. also that pic of mary on caktuz. scientists don't kno why it hasent disentigrated yet. st. patrick turning water into ice, padre pio flying 100 feet off the ground, people singing while heads being chopped off, people still talking normal while being burned to death. all these people have witnesses, and all these people follow God and claim that there is one. but if you physical evidence thats directly linked to god then i can't help ya.

I don't guess it is really testable, but what about life coming from non-life. Some say that man has been aroud for millians of years. Has anyone ever observed life coming from non-life yet? I dont remember the specifics, but it seems that I had read somewhere a while back that scientist at one time thought they had observed that in a petri dish but later found out that something already had to be present for that to happen in whatever that test was. I am thinking some kind of flies or something, but really just don't remember what it was.

A creator of humans perhaps but a being that created everything from nothing, absolutely not.

Yes, Every time you look in the mirror. You form was given to you by God's image. You very next breath is a gift from God. And then there's the Universe. The kind of grandeur that only God can create. Just take a look at Canis Majoris in relation to the size of our earth.

If you mean scientifically, not that I'm aware of. But, I do need to say this...If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God, if he is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him?

Yes, only if you call that unknown and now UN-KNOWABLE causative force*, which set off the 'Big Bang' as ‘the creator-god’. * Prof. Richard Dawkins calls it* “Einstein's God”. * All known universe is ‘the creation’, it surely came into existence somehow. [The proof is in the pudding!] * But creation doesn’t prove existence of ‘creator’. It could have been ‘spontaneous’, like an eruption of a volcano (for want of better analogy). Also a ‘cause’ is not the same as ‘creator’. Or else Influenza virus would take the credit as ‘the creator of flu’! * According to present state of knowledge BIG BANG is the starting point of universe, and EVOLUTION explains all then-after. Earth, surface water, DNA and so on. * The unknown and now UN-KNOWABLE causative force* that set off the 'Big Bang' left it to evolve without ANY further interference. * If one called that ‘now UN-KNOWABLE causative force’ as ‘the creator-god’, it must be extinct by definition, as the force was ‘spent’ in the ‘creation’ of this universe. Thus ‘the creator-god’ must also be an atheist entity, which set off the ‘Big Bang’ and disappeared, leaving it to evolve naturally without any further ‘interference’. * When early man, --just one of the billion ‘products of evolution’-- had spare time to think about 'why day-night, why seasons, why rain-drought', 'what’s origin of universe’, etc., originally all gaps in man's knowledge were plugged by a superpower: ‘god’. * People searching for god[s] don’t know that the ‘player’ has left. They believe the ‘creator god’ is hiding somewhere and the game is still on! * Soon the lazy-wicked latched onto the profitability of the idea of ‘continued existence of such power’ and they invented greedy game of ‘hide-and-seek’ with ‘god’ and ‘constructed’ incredulous mythology around the concept [of 'god']. * It’s all make-believe. That’s why absolute faith and blind belief is essential for ‘membership’ of any religion! * Both God & ‘soul’ are human concepts, which are not essential to live an ethical-moral life …and enjoy it! The presence of ‘more than one’ gods and/or just one atheist is enough to destroy the god-myth-superstition-delusion. * So stop worrying and enjoy a guilt-free life! And marvel the world around you, without naming it 'miracle', or 'god'. Watch for FREE! “Evolution, the greatest show on earth!”

upper, and lower case Alphabet.

tbh if there was, why would you be asking this question? but some people say the eye. its too perfect to not be designed.

Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. Evidence means different things. A prosecution lawyer presents strong evidence but it can still be refuted in court even if the man is guilty usually through deceit and lies, the proof is usually by the offender re-offending. Similarly religion ha always been with us as has a small amount of atheism it’s the second religion of the world but where religion has always been at the forefront of any system of government atheism only ever was once in Babel and that came to an abrupt end when the people revolted. Will it happen again? Atheists seem to think so but then we’d still be in caves arguing about religion if it was up to them procrastinators. Science is finding out new things everyday and new things are being invented everyday and people are being born and dying everyday despite there being no scientific logic of why we reproduce sexually and why the body dies. To a hamster in a cage it's existence can only fathom what it can perceive and humans are no different we live in a cage called earth and are trying to say the whole universe owes itself to us and we understand it…

Ah, this again...religion is faith based. When I see people post questions like this I wonder what it's like to live life without having faith, to have to questions things that don't hurt them or just don't effect them because they don't believe. I wonder if they have faith in their loved ones because who knows what plans they have for you. Then maybe they will understand it's the same concept.

Time: time is testable in reverse engineering and in decay(reverse decay...)"if its this yesterday and it is reduced this much now and then graphing backwards it was this before.... thus at one time it could not be more than X number (100%) anything before that was pre time. like a line segment *--------> of time whatever was before the 100% beggining was pretime thus creator. (hey skiddo I could only give 1 more point cause my level increase hope it helps)

jag

There is, I believe, one piece of testicle evidence...

It depends on your definition of evidence. I would say no, but what do I actually know? It is a point of endless debate. Trust your beliefs, you will be happier.

Absolutely, not only one evidence but thousands and thousands of clear evidences that prove the creator GOD. One of them is the nature & environment surrounding us from trees, mountains, animals...etc, who created them in this wounderful beuty & appearance? Each creature has his own characteristic, secrets & role in this earth, and all are well-created by our creator GOD. Dont go too far, look at yourself, how you were created in your mother's body? Who formed you? Who created you & gave you two hands not three? Why 2 eyes not one? Why 5 fingers not 3,4 or 6? Why? Why?why?... These kind of questions will not end & you will not find any answer except that YES, there should be a creator,God, who created us & every thing in this universe. The question you might ask is that how do I know my creator,my GOD? The answer can be found easily & clearly in Islam, the true religion that GOD's only accept. How did I knew that? The answer is that you should now search & discover Islam. The following are 3 useful authentic websites which introduce & explain Islam in english & other languages: www.islam-guide.com www.islamway.com www.islamqa.com Finally, before entering to these websites I want to present this saying "If our minds are captive to prejudice, preconception or prejudgment, we will never see the beauty or truth of anything". And always ask GOD to help you find the truth and guidance. Wish to all guidance and real happiness.

.:I did not say I did not understand mutations. I said given the nature of mutations it is implausible that they were a key part of evolutionary progress:. . Lol! Thank you for that little pearl of wisdom! You haven't studied much biology have you? And before you answer 'I've studied plenty of biology.' And then reiterate the same meaningless passage about things being implausible, answer me this. . What is it you find implausible. What is it about their nature you find so hard to digest?

Of course not, the way to test evidence is to repeat it. Why can't do anything along the lines of recreating to test if a god would work.

No. If there is, it should be outside every government building and taught to every school child in the world.

I heard this reasoning from a college campus preacher and it has stayed with me throughout my studies: Please read the entire section before forming an opinion. Suppose I took an infant and slit his throat in front of millions. The OVERWHELMING majority (99.9%) of people would feel something wrong deep inside them. Just writing it or reading it causes a stir deep within us. Harming an infant who did not and could not have done anything to deserve this treatment is wrong. This would be true regardless of the people having different religions or laws. This basic moral in all of us proves we are connected and have a purpose. If life started as an accident (no intelligent design), there would be no morals because we should not even be here. Life would have no meaning, so the loss of life would have no meaning. Science and religion are not at odds. They are answering different questions on the same issue. Science deals more with how. Religion deals more with who. Both deal with our existence. Both are incomplete and cannot be entirely understood until we are able to raise our level of thinking.