Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[Cutter7]

Me? Troll? NEVER!

 

I didn't accept ring species. There aren't good examples. There should be tons. Because of the amount of diversity, and we're all evolving all the time, we should have plenty of species where we can point to the ring species between them. Like where is the chimp/bonobo/human ring species?

[Cutter7]

By what mechanism would the accumulation of changes prevent large phenotypical changes over time

I'm not sure why the quote button is busted but whatever...

Let's keep this intelligent shall we? "phenotypical" isn't even in spell check so you must be making up words to sound smart. :-p

Seriously though, there doesn't have to be a mechanism for preventing it. There's no mechanism to prevent a horse from becoming a unicorn either. You need a mechanism or to at least demonstrate that these little itty bitty activations and deactivations of DNA lead to change in species... Like a horse becoming a unicorn. The closest thing you've got is a mule.

[PeterMP]

I'm not sure why the quote button is busted but whatever...

Let's keep this intelligent shall we? "phenotypical" isn't even in spell check so you must be making up words to sound smart. :-p

Seriously though, there doesn't have to be a mechanism for preventing it. There's no mechanism to prevent a horse from becoming a unicorn either. You need a mechanism or to at least demonstrate that these little itty bitty activations and deactivations of DNA lead to change in species... Like a horse becoming a unicorn. The closest thing you've got is a mule.

 

 

There are lot's of examples of changes in DNA resulting in changes in phenotypes (creating phenotypical changes).

 

I've already given you an example of a speciation event.

 

I've already explained why we don't see lot's of species evolve currently (your post above this one).

 

I've already explained that the ancestors to humans are extinct.

 

I've explained and given examples of organisms gaining "new" information/traits.

 

And if you think I'm heavily or overly tied to evolutionary theory (or any scientific theory), then you haven't read much of this thread.

 

Do you actually have a point other than you don't like evolution even though you don't really understand it or genetics?

 

The vast majority of scientific evidence supports evolution.  There are lot of things we can do in a lab where can actually understand what is happening and see the effects (including chromosome fusions, gene duplications, horizontal gene transfer, and basic mutations in the DNA) that match what see in nature.

 

If you don't like the science, nobody can make you.  You don't have to worry about that.

 

You started with a pretty specific question, but now you just seem to be spewing garbage which I and others have explained to you.

[Cutter7]

There are lot's of examples of changes in DNA resulting in changes in phenotypes (creating phenotypical changes).

 

I've already given you an example of a speciation event.

 

I've already explained why we don't see lot's of species evolve currently (your post above this one).

 

I've already explained that the ancestors to humans are extinct.

 

I've explained and given examples of organisms gaining "new" information/traits.

 

And if you think I'm heavily or overly tied to evolutionary theory (or any scientific theory), then you haven't read much of this thread.

 

Do you actually have a point other than you don't like evolution even though you don't really understand it or genetics?

 

The vast majority of scientific evidence supports evolution.  There are lot of things we can do in a lab where can actually understand what is happening and see the effects (including chromosome fusions, gene duplications, horizontal gene transfer, and basic mutations in the DNA) that match what see in nature.

 

If you don't like the science, nobody can make you.  You don't have to worry about that.

 

You started with a pretty specific question, but now you just seem to be spewing garbage which I and others have explained to you.

Ever hear of Occan's razor? In laymen's terms - the simplest answer is most likely more correct.

On the one hand we have a model where people are people, dogs are dogs, and horses are horses. 

On the other we have a very complicated model with all sorts of fringe lab experiments that a HS student couldn't possibly repeat along with a heavy does of brow beating and jibba jabba where the "theory" is always changing (so must always be wrong)

In either case we never have apes becoming people, dogs becoming bears, or horses becoming unicorns. So WTF good is all your science if it can't give me a GD unicorn?

Even if your model is 100% "correct" (this time) well than I say, "how boring" because you also tell me that evolution, like the emperors new clothes, is something we won't ever actually see/observe. Yeah, you haven't even cracked multi-assed monkies so we can forget about you turning on the DNA that makes us last long enough to witness your evolution miracle. 

[Cutter7]

There are lot's of examples of changes in DNA resulting in changes in phenotypes (creating phenotypical changes).

 

Phenotype - big deal. Where are your Genotype changes?

[alexey]

Me? Troll? NEVER!

You gave yourself up buddy. Don't know why people are still talking to you. You are either a straight up troll or the missing link between humans and trolls.

[s0crates]

Ever hear of Occan's razor? In laymen's terms - the simplest answer is most likely more correct.

Correction: the principle of parsimony says that the simplest explanation that is sufficient to explain all the relevant phenomena, or the simplest explanation that works (not merely the simplest answer), should be preferred.

If you have 2 theories that are both adequate to all the facts, pick the simpler one. In this case one theory is clearly better at accounting for the facts.

Occam's razor has to be one of the most misunderstood ideas in history.

[No Excuses]

Occam's razor itself is used by evolutionary biologists for mapping evolutionary relatedness amongst organisms.

But I don't see a point in explaining this anymore to someone who has zero understanding of genetics or evolutionary biology.

[PeterMP]

Phenotype - big deal. Where are your Genotype changes?

Changes in the genotype change the phenotype.

 

There are lot's of examples of people changing phenotypes by changing the genotype.

[PeterMP]

Ever hear of Occan's razor? In laymen's terms - the simplest answer is most likely more correct.

On the one hand we have a model where people are people, dogs are dogs, and horses are horses. 

On the other we have a very complicated model with all sorts of fringe lab experiments that a HS student couldn't possibly repeat along with a heavy does of brow beating and jibba jabba where the "theory" is always changing (so must always be wrong)

In either case we never have apes becoming people, dogs becoming bears, or horses becoming unicorns. So WTF good is all your science if it can't give me a GD unicorn?

Even if your model is 100% "correct" (this time) well than I say, "how boring" because you also tell me that evolution, like the <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor" s_new_clothes"="">emperors new clothes, is something we won't ever actually see/observe. Yeah, you haven't even cracked multi-assed monkies so we can forget about you turning on the DNA that makes us last long enough to witness your evolution miracle. 

 

Evolution is good because it explains why and how bacteria become antibiotic resistant.  It explains why and how cancers become resistant chemotherapy.  It explain why and how weeds are becoming Round Up resistant.  Evolution explains why we have a new flu virus every year.

 

I never said we won't actually see/observe evolution (I have said unless conditions change, we won't see much speciation, where speciation requires a lot of evolution).

 

We see and observe evolution all of the time (in all the things I mentioned above), and we've also observed at least one (as I said there are other possible examples that we know of, but nobody has done the actual mating test that you demand to call it speciation, much less how many examples MIGHT HAVE happened where we just didn't/don't know enough about the organism to know that speciation did occur) speciation event.

 

(Other people have dealt with your mangling of Occam's Razor.)

 

The best scientific evidence supports evolution.  I can't help it if you don't like that, but that is the way it is.

 

You can accept the scientific evidence or reject science and the scientific evidence.

[Cutter7]

What's science say about the creation of life in the first place?

 

But I don't see a point in explaining this anymore to someone who has zero understanding of genetics or evolutionary biology.

There's no reason to explain something to someone who lacks understanding. P-shaw! This is science! The ignorant masses should take everything you say on authority. They should have faith that you have reached a deeper understanding than possible by those of merely average intelligence and education.

[PF Chang]

What's science say about the creation of life in the first place?

 

There's no reason to explain something to someone who lacks understanding. P-shaw! This is science! The ignorant masses should take everything you say on authority. They should have faith that you have reached a deeper understanding than possible by those of merely average intelligence and education.

 

They tried to explain it to you. Nothing seemed to get through and it's sort of obvious that nothing they could say was going to change your view anyway. At that point there is no further reason to explain. 

 

Keep in mind that you came into this thread asking why bears don't pop out of dogs and had to assert that yes, you do believe in DNA (is this really something up for debate??).

[PeterMP]

What's science say about the creation of life in the first place?

 

There's no reason to explain something to someone who lacks understanding. P-shaw! This is science! The ignorant masses should take everything you say on authority. They should have faith that you have reached a deeper understanding than possible by those of merely average intelligence and education.

 

There are plenty of resources out there where people, including those directly involved in the science, try to explain evolution to the broader public,

 

In this particular case, you haven't shown any interest in trying to understand.  For the most part, you've made declarative statements even though in many cases repeating statements where there has been an attempt to explain why the statement is not correct.

 

In terms of the origins of life, there are some ideas.  One of the most basic concepts required by the scientific ideas is that there should be non-abiogenic methods to produce some biomolecules.

 

Today (as much as a 20 years ago there was little evidence for production of many of the molecules that were thought required for life in outer space or natural environments) we know that many biomolecules can be produced through natural process in outer space and under certain conditions on Earth.

 

Prior to the early 1990s, it was largely believed the origin of life was protein based partly because the precursors of the proteins can be made under what were proposed to be early Earth environments.

 

A problem arose when biochemistry started to indicate that the origin of life was most likely nucleic acid base (this is called the RNA world hypothesis).  While there was some evidence for natural sources of nucleic acid precursors, the evidence was not very robust.

 

So we have a case where science essentially makes a prediction:  If the biochemical data is right, then there should be evidence for nucleic acid precursors in the natural environment.  Since then, there has been a more concerted effort to find evidence for the natural occurrence of nucleic precursors in space:

 

And lo and behold, that's what we've found.

 

http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/dna-building-blocks-can-be-made-space/

 

We gather information (biochemistry suggest that nucleic acids pre-date proteins), prediction if life came from nucleic acids there should be viable methods to generate nucleic acid precursors in nature, and then we find data that matches essentially what was a prediction.

 

And the idea of a protein based origin of life has largely been abandoned.

 

That's science.  

 

Information from two different sources now indicate a common origin of life.

 

(Now, I will point out that there are people that very strongly support a non-nucleic acid origin of life so it isn't like the controversy is over (but most of them even now concede an importance of nucleic acids early on and the others focus on life from an energy stand point.)

[Cutter7]

They tried to explain it to you. Nothing seemed to get through and it's sort of obvious that nothing they could say was going to change your view anyway. At that point there is no further reason to explain. 

 

Keep in mind that you came into this thread asking why bears don't pop out of dogs and had to assert that yes, you do believe in DNA (is this really something up for debate??).

Yeah... they made it crystal clear.

They say: Men aren't apes because men have a fused chromosome.

They know it was fused because they can fuse them in chimps.

... but when you fuse them in chimps they don't become men.

How could I have gotten that confused?

PeterMP - anyone ever create life abiogenicly? I mean... even something simple like a bacteria? 

[s0crates]

Cutter,

What's the alternative to Darwin's hypothesis?

For example: How do you explain the apparent similarity between the skeletons of mammals? How do you explain that even whales have feet bones?

 

Or are you appealing to ignorance? I wouldn't expect that from somebody as interested in logic as you. You would surely know an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[PeterMP]

Yeah... they made it crystal clear.

They say: Men aren't apes because men have a fused chromosome.

They know it was fused because they can fuse them in chimps.

... but when you fuse them in chimps they don't become men.

How could I have gotten that confused?

PeterMP - anyone ever create life abiogenicly? I mean... even something simple like a bacteria? 

 

People aren't trying to create humans from any other organism.  I don't think anybody thinks such experiments would be ethical.  There are very minimal  experiments being done with chimps today and all of them are directly connected to practical human health issues.

 

And as already been explained, Chimps aren't the ancestors of humans.  Chimps and humans had a common ancestor.

 

If you have questions, you should ask.

 

In terms of abiogenic life, it hasn't COMPLETELY happened yet, but that it isn't something that you want to hang your out on as an argument that it can't happen.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html

 

And isn't really evidence that it didn't happen.

 

Part of it, undoubtedly is time,  People aren't going to take their whole career and try and evolve life.

[No Excuses]

Yeah... they made it crystal clear.

They say: Men aren't apes because men have a fused chromosome.

They know it was fused because they can fuse them in chimps.

... but when you fuse them in chimps they don't become men.

How could I have gotten that confused?

PeterMP - anyone ever create life abiogenicly? I mean... even something simple like a bacteria?

No one has said that men aren't chimps because of a fused chromosome or that fusing a chromosome creates a human. Please read this thread more carefully. People are taking their good time to educate you, read and learn.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Alright, I have to tell this because it directly relates to this thread and it happened just this week.

So I was filling in for a 7th grade science teacher for the latter half of this week, and one of the lessons we covered was the Earth's timeline. Let's just say that now I know exactly what Bill Nye feels like.

We went outside and laid out the timeline on the football field like the picture, obviously not laying all the pieces out just the important bits.

Now I'll grant that most of this can be chalked up to the fact that 30% of 7th graders are total smartass-know-it-alls, but the number of times I heard some snide "Well that ain't what the Bible says" or "well that's wrong because the Bible says" made me about crazy. There were two in particular that I just wanted to choke, the one was a girl, and her objection was as far as I could tell very sincere, but her outright dismissal of even the most basic evidences (light from distant galaxies etc) was maddening. The second kid was more confrontational to the point that I simply told him that if he wanted to talk Bible and theology then he was free to meet me after class, which he did. So we talked for a couple minutes, but the only thing he's been told is that science is wrong and that the Bible teaches a Young Earth creation, he never even knew that there were devout Christians throughout history who rejected the idea of Young Earth.

[Jumbo]

First, anyone interested should check out last night's Daily Show. Crazy legislation being proposed in Kansas---for instance, parents would be able "opt out" having their kids taught evolution in science classes (and much more). Very pertinent to the topic, and damn funny (as well as sad, to me).

 

Now, some business.

 

"Mangling Occam's Razor can result in deep cuts to your argument." 

 

 

 

Cutter, I was being vewy vewy quiet, but to me (and others) you've read pretty much like a lightweight wise-ass troll mixing in some semi-legit (perhaps being too kind) commentary as part of your shtick throughout your participation. 

 

 

So you can either lose the objectionable aspect of your participation or cease posting in the thread. Those are the two options that allow you to avoid a ban.

 

 

If you don't get what's being stated to you, or perhaps would simply like to act like you don't, don't ask for clarification or make any other reply to this in the thread or in PM. Just comply with one of the options in my instructions. We also provide a feedback forum for comments on board management. Thanks. 

[Cutter7]

Cutter,

What's the alternative to Darwin's hypothesis?

For example: How do you explain the apparent similarity between the skeletons of mammals? How do you explain that even whales have feet bones?

 

Or are you appealing to ignorance? I wouldn't expect that from somebody as interested in logic as you. You would surely know an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I dunno... I'm not that smart. Keep in mind that just because I'm not 100% sold on every aspect of science doesn't make me a "young Earth" guy (complete with pre-Moses humans having dino-buddies - although it'd finally explain the Flintstones.) Anyway, it's completely legitimate for me to reject an explanation without having an alternative. Good example: when I see a great magic trick: I don't start declaring OMG TEH MAGIKS!

 

So you can either lose the objectionable aspect of your participation or cease posting in the thread. Those are the two options that allow you to avoid a ban.

 

Certainly, there are likely people who have said some of my points/questions better. But it's not "objectionable" to disagree. The fact is, my questions are legit and not trolling. It's what makes an actual conversation and not just everyone mumbling "oh yes, science. Science, yes". Heck, isn't the thread BUILT on a the differing stances of evolutionary theory vs. religion? Respectfully, my point still stands, there are more questions than answers and science will likely prove itself wrong again.  Which leads us back to actual thread content...

 

 

Alright, I have to tell this because it directly relates to this thread and it happened just this week.

So I was filling in for a 7th grade science teacher for the latter half of this week, and one of the lessons we covered was the Earth's timeline. Let's just say that now I know exactly what Bill Nye feels like.

We went outside and laid out the timeline on the football field like the picture, obviously not laying all the pieces out just the important bits.

Now I'll grant that most of this can be chalked up to the fact that 30% of 7th graders are total smartass-know-it-alls, but the number of times I heard some snide "Well that ain't what the Bible says" or "well that's wrong because the Bible says" made me about crazy. There were two in particular that I just wanted to choke, the one was a girl, and her objection was as far as I could tell very sincere, but her outright dismissal of even the most basic evidences (light from distant galaxies etc) was maddening. The second kid was more confrontational to the point that I simply told him that if he wanted to talk Bible and theology then he was free to meet me after class, which he did. So we talked for a couple minutes, but the only thing he's been told is that science is wrong and that the Bible teaches a Young Earth creation, he never even knew that there were devout Christians throughout history who rejected the idea of Young Earth.

 

"Fact" brought up earlier: Evolution happens when there's room for it.

When we look at the football field of evolution, there's a lot of evolution when you'd think there'd be the least (because it's most crowded). Anyone have that covered? Is the rate of evolution speeding up like the football field would have us believe, or has it stopped?

[PeterMP]

"Fact" brought up earlier: Evolution happens when there's room for it.

When we look at the football field of evolution, there's a lot of evolution when you'd think there'd be the least (because it's most crowded). Anyone have that covered? Is the rate of evolution speeding up like the football field would have us believe, or has it stopped?

 

1.  I'm not sure the football field is good evidence that evolution is speeding up.  As ASF noted, it doesn't have every event.

 

2.  But two thing probably contribute to that- evolution of eukaryotes and multi-cellularity were slow.  There is a pretty big gap between what we think this the occurrence of life and the evolution of those two things. Now that doesn't mean that evolution wasn't happening.  The problem is that the organisms that would have existed leave minimal evidence of their exsistance that doesn't allow us to understand what was happening in evolution.  

 

If we assume the RNA world origin of life, then the introduction of protein synthesis would be a big step in evolution.  That's missing from the football field due to our lack of knowledge of that event.  If you assume some other origin of life, then the introduction of RNA/DNA would have been a big step in evolution, but again, we don't have information on that.

 

Partly, because it was so long ago, and based on "fossils" it isn't clear we could determine the difference between the two sets of organisms.

 

And even after that, you have soft bodied organisms like jelly fish that again don't leave much evidence and makes hard to determine if there have been evolutionary changes.  That doesn't mean though they weren't evolving.

 

As part of that our understanding of historical evolution is biased towards larger animals that have things like bones and so leave good fossils.

 

I suspect mostly why it looks like it speeding up to you is just that bias.

 

3.  The other big thing that happened a good while after that.the evolution of eukaryotes and multi-cellularity is the migration of plants and animals to the land.  This lead to a new niche to fill and pretty rapid evolution.

 

In terms of the greater conversation, you aren't really contributing to the conversation.  You haven't actually expressed much interest in the answers as before you repeatedly misrepresented people's statements and continued to say things after having being corrected.  I don't get the impression you are actually interested in learning things.

 

I generally call this throw mud at the wall approach and see what sticks.

 

Yes, it is possible that evolution is wrong, and due to the nature of science we will hopefully continue to gain new information and learn more things.

 

But to put in the context of this thread and the title (and the conversation you suggest you are supporting), the title of this thread is not that science is perfect and can absolutely reveal truths.

 

If your point is that it doesn't reveal absolute truths, great!  We all get it.  You can move along.

 

Evolution is the EASILY the best answer for how species came to be based on the information we have.

 

(Jumbo, I'm sure my thoughts don't matter, but I'd rather not see him banned over this.)

[Cutter7]

1.  I'm not sure the football field is good evidence that evolution is speeding up.  As ASF noted, it doesn't have every event.

 

2.  But two thing probably contribute to that- evolution of eukaryotes and multi-cellularity were slow.  There is a pretty big gap between what we think this the occurrence of life and the evolution of those two things. Now that doesn't mean that evolution wasn't happening.  The problem is that the organisms that would have existed leave minimal evidence of their exsistance that doesn't allow us to understand what was happening in evolution.  

 

If we assume the RNA world origin of life, then the introduction of protein synthesis would be a big step in evolution.  That's missing from the football field due to our lack of knowledge of that event.  If you assume some other origin of life, then the introduction of RNA/DNA would have been a big step in evolution, but again, we don't have information on that.

 

Partly, because it was so long ago, and based on "fossils" it isn't clear we could determine the difference between the two sets of organisms.

 

And even after that, you have soft bodied organisms like jelly fish that again don't leave much evidence and makes hard to determine if there have been evolutionary changes.  That doesn't mean though they weren't evolving.

 

As part of that our understanding of historical evolution is biased towards larger animals that have things like bones and so leave good fossils.

 

I suspect mostly why it looks like it speeding up to you is just that bias.

 

3.  The other big thing that happened a good while after that.the evolution of eukaryotes and multi-cellularity is the migration of plants and animals to the land.  This lead to a new niche to fill and pretty rapid evolution.

Hasn't anyone created a biosphere test this? Like have we observed plants or animals evolving from the water to land? It seems like we could create the perfect environment for see biology do what it is evolution would do.

 

In terms of the greater conversation, you aren't really contributing to the conversation.  You haven't actually expressed much interest in the answers as before you repeatedly misrepresented people's statements and continued to say things after having being corrected.  I don't get the impression you are actually interested in learning things.

 

I generally call this throw mud at the wall approach and see what sticks.

 

Yes, it is possible that evolution is wrong, and due to the nature of science we will hopefully continue to gain new information and learn more things.

 

But to put in the context of this thread and the title (and the conversation you suggest you are supporting), the title of this thread is not that science is perfect and can absolutely reveal truths.

 

If your point is that it doesn't reveal absolute truths, great!  We all get it.  You can move along.

 

Evolution is the EASILY the best answer for how species came to be based on the information we have.

 

(Jumbo, I'm sure my thoughts don't matter, but I'd rather not see him banned over this.)

 

... Just having a conversation. I don't why anyone would get worked up over any low brow statement I've made on a football fan board. Thanks for your vote to keep the conversation going

 

Honestly, I don't see how life could have evolved from no-life (regardless of situation). The odds are too long and I'm not one to believe the million monkeys on a million typewriters would give us one of Shakespear's works if given a million years. Perhaps one day we'll find Earth was seeded.

[Kindred]

wrong thread

[PeterMP]

Hasn't anyone created a biosphere test this? Like have we observed plants or animals evolving from the water to land? It seems like we could create the perfect environment for see biology do what it is evolution would do.

No, nobody has done this. What you seem to still not continue to understand is that the expectation is that it might take hundreds or even thousands of generations for something like that to happen and a relatively large starting population. The largest organisms that I know of where has been a real effort to observe evolution is fruit flies and that's largely because they are small so you can keep a lot of them without using much space, cheap to grow, and reproduce quickly (so a lot of generations in a small period of time).

Have we seen it no?

No, but evolution tells us we'd expect it not to be very likely given current conditions. Today there are predators waiting for animals to come into shallow water much less come onto land (things like bears, racoons, and people). Before their were land animals, coming up onto land would have been a big advantage in terms of escaping predators and feasting on whatever had died and washed up onto the shore (or very shallow water).

Coming up onto land if you are a water animal is no longer an empty niche.

Honestly, I don't see how life could have evolved from no-life (regardless of situation). The odds are too long and I'm not one to believe the million monkeys on a million typewriters would give us one of Shakespear's works if given a million years. Perhaps one day we'll find Earth was seeded.

Why are the odds too long?

What variables are you even starting to take into account to say the odds are too long?

 

I don't really get where the idea of seeding gets you anywhere.  Where did the seeders come from?  Why aren't the odds too long for that?

[s0crates]

I dunno... I'm not that smart. Keep in mind that just because I'm not 100% sold on every aspect of science doesn't make me a "young Earth" guy (complete with pre-Moses humans having dino-buddies - although it'd finally explain the Flintstones.) Anyway, it's completely legitimate for me to reject an explanation without having an alternative. Good example: when I see a great magic trick: I don't start declaring OMG TEH MAGIKS!

 

 

I think you misunderstood me, and having re-read my post, I can see how you did.  I'll try to clarify.

 

One question I have for you is if you have a better explanation than Darwin's, for example: Is there some better way to account for the similarities in genetic material and physical structures we find in many different species than saying that they are somehow related?

 

Separate from that question is my concern that you have appealed to ignorance in your previous line of reasoning.  Here I do not mean to complain that you reject a theory without an alternative explanation, which is fine if you reject the theory based on evidence. My complaint is that you seem to have rejected the theory based on the absence of evidence, which is a fallacy. You cannot confirm or dis-confirm a theory based on ignorance.  Yet this is precisely what you do when you attempt to falsify Darwin's theory by appealing to our supposed lack of evidence of new species evolving in real time.

 

Saying Darwin's hypothesis is false because of some supposed lack of evidence is a fallacy.  We cannot conclude anything whatsoever from our absence of evidence. It would be akin to arguing that there is no God because I cannot prove God's existence (or conversely that there is a God because I cannot disprove God's existence).