Post Any Evidence For God Here

[waauw]

i mean, most of us wouldn't have a problem stepping on hundreds of ants... but i'm sure the ants think their lives are meaningful and make us out to be monsters

and if god exists, then we aren't even ant status to him

so christians like to worship an divine entity who considers them as unimportant ants?

not everybody thinks they are the most important thing in the universe bro

You do realise that human society is built on the fact to try and preserve and better human lives(even if the system malfunctions sometimes, that is it's purpose) through cooperation.
If you like to believe that human life isn't worth one bit, then you might as well try and kill as many people as you can. It is people with attitudes like that that start wars.

[waauw]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

One of the reasons people don't read the Bible, is because scientist determine that life on earth is billions of years old. This is not compatible with the Bible, so it appears the Bible is wrong because the top scientist are saying they have facts, scientific proof.

So what is one of their scientific proofs that is used as "fact"? They determine that dinosaurs lived millions to billions of years ago. How do they determine this? by the soil layer the dinosaurs are in. When they are asked how old the soil layer is, they say it is billions of years old. How do you know this? We are able to determine this by what dinosaurs are in each layer.

This is called circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not science and certainly not fact.

The age of dinosaurs(and fauna and flora found fossilized) is also determined by other factors, like carbon dating, the law of superposition.
I know you don't think carbon dating is right, but the fact that it is determined by it makes it a non-circular reasoning as it falls outside of the circle you described.

This layering of soil with fossils in certain layers, is called the geological column. How did the geological column come about? When the global flood occurred in Genesis 7, not only did it rain for 40 days, but water burst out of the deep caverns of the earth (Verse 11) for the same period. Which means the water would have very high turbidity. Which is to say the flood waters would be filled with rock, dirt, clay, sand, minerals and vegetation. And when the soil settled, it would settle according to density. Hence layers.

Why are fossil records in certain layers? When the flood came and killed off most life on earth, those dead creatures would also be mixed in the water with high turbidity. Those dead creatures, would still have live bacteria in their bodies. As the bacteria proliferated internally, they would eat the inside of the creature, excreting methane gas inside the dead creature. This would create a buoyancy. The crustaceans with an exoskeleton would resist buoyancy the most, and therefore be most dense and sink first. Hence why they are deepest on geological column. Primates and creatures with expandable exterior would resist buoyancy the least, Therefore, they would expand the most and be the least dense and settle last and thus be high on the geological column.

The dead creatures would settle according to density as the soil settled according to density. Hence layering of fossils according to density...And there you have the formation of the geological column with a logical and supportive explanation.

1. This evidence debunks evolution's circular reasoning and breaks one barrier of why people don't read the Bible.
2. This evidence provides scientifically that the Bible is supported by science.

The Bible will change your life, it has the answers for why you are on earth, the purpose for your existence.

A couple of mistakes here:

• As I stated above, it is not circular reasoning.
• You say most animals were killed by a flooding. I hope you don't mean you think dinosaurs were killed by a flood? How would you explain aquatic dinosaurs to be extinct then?
• You also ignore the Chicxulub crater, in the Yucatan Peninsula. It is a crater of about 180km in diameter, large enough to kill a large chunk of planetary life. (as contrasted to your flood-theory)
• Another problem is that there is not evidence supporting your flood-theory actually happened. There is evidence all over the place of large tsunami's, but never a global flooding.
• Your theory of buoyancy of exoskeletons completely ignores the law of superposition and the principle of faunal succession.
• By your definition of buoyancy of exoskeletons the bones of every single dinosaur species should be more dense then the bones of any animal that that lived after the dinosaur era's, like sabertooth tigers, Mammoths, Dodo's, ... Do you have any proof that the density of their bones is higher?

[waauw]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.

The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

Why repeat the same thing again and why still ignoring the fact that evolution is based on more than just carbon dating?

[waauw]

The fact is that the Geo. Column only exist in text books and not in real life. If the sedimentary Column was in fact real it would reach down 150 miles into the earth. Also for some reason, you can't find some layers in some parts of the world where they do appear in others??? What happened there for those millions of years? In some columns certain creatures are found in a certain layer while in other columns in other parts of the world, the same creatures are found in completely different layers of those columns. Can anyone explain how that could happen over millions of Years of sediments? No because it's a bullshit lie that they tell us in school.

1. Give me an example
2. Of the top of my head I'd have to say Erosion can have a large influence in the formation of layers

Misconception No. 1.
The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

The Truth:
It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/geologiccolumn.htm

You ignore some things:

• The fact that the earth was formed by catastrophy's partially has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. These two are perfectly compatible.
• The fact that these three guys didn't believe evolution was right, does not make evolution wrong. There are plentiful scientists who support evolution, but that doesn't prove evolution either. So please focus on the evidence and keep in mind that a lot of discoveries have been controversial in their day in history. Even today there are examples of these like racial intelligence for example.

[BigBallinStalin]

Waauw, you're doing a good job, but the best that you're going to get outta this is practicing your typed English. These two guys substitute knowledge, philosophy, and the scientific method with their divinely inspired, cognitive bias. They're not here to learn from you; they're here to get on a platform and project their frustrated vomit all over us.

[Lootifer]

The fact is that the Geo. Column only exist in text books and not in real life. If the sedimentary Column was in fact real it would reach down 150 miles into the earth. Also for some reason, you can't find some layers in some parts of the world where they do appear in others??? What happened there for those millions of years? In some columns certain creatures are found in a certain layer while in other columns in other parts of the world, the same creatures are found in completely different layers of those columns. Can anyone explain how that could happen over millions of Years of sediments? No because it's a bullshit lie that they tell us in school.

1. Give me an example
2. Of the top of my head I'd have to say Erosion can have a large influence in the formation of layers

Misconception No. 1.
The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

The Truth:
It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists.1 Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/geologiccolumn.htm

You ignore some things:

• The fact that the earth was formed by catastrophy's partially has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. These two are perfectly compatible.
• The fact that these three guys didn't believe evolution was right, does not make evolution wrong. There are plentiful scientists who support evolution, but that doesn't prove evolution either. So please focus on the evidence and keep in mind that a lot of discoveries have been controversial in their day in history. Even today there are examples of these like racial intelligence for example.

Please dont reply to him. He perpetuates stupidity and I think it may be slightly contagious.

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.

The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

This is twice waauw is referencing carbon dating. Could someone please tell him this is not carbon dating discussion above. And carbon dating has been proven to be too wildly inaccurate to discuss seriously. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, yet you refute it. That is so funny. You are saying "not uh" and you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I've given ample evidence. I will not throw the pearls before the swine no longer. I will teach and tell others.

You are dead men walking that don't even know you're lost. Your only hope is to ask for forgiveness of your sins, repent and plead for mercy from God. For all you have done is stored up greater wrath upon yourselves. The wrath of God will come in the here and now as far as loss of quality of life, loss of blessing,.. And the here after as far as eternity of gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain, suffering. Forever. So go ahead, Mock. jeer, smirk. I'm dusting off the dust of ya'll.

May God have mercy on your souls...

[chang50]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.

The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

This is twice waauw is referencing carbon dating. Could someone please tell him this is not carbon dating discussion above. And carbon dating has been proven to be too wildly inaccurate to discuss seriously. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, yet you refute it. That is so funny. You are saying "not uh" and you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I've given ample evidence. I will not throw the pearls before the swine no longer. I will teach and tell others.

You are dead men walking that don't even know you're lost. Your only hope is to ask for forgiveness of your sins, repent and plead for mercy from God. For all you have done is stored up greater wrath upon yourselves. The wrath of God will come in the here and now as far as loss of quality of life, loss of blessing,.. And the here after as far as eternity of gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain, suffering. Forever. So go ahead, Mock. jeer, smirk. I'm dusting off the dust of ya'll.

May God have mercy on your souls...

But he loves you.... (G.Carlin)

[waauw]

This is twice waauw is referencing carbon dating. Could someone please tell him this is not carbon dating discussion above. And carbon dating has been proven to be too wildly inaccurate to discuss seriously. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, yet you refute it. That is so funny. You are saying "not uh" and you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I've given ample evidence. I will not throw the pearls before the swine no longer. I will teach and tell others.

You are dead men walking that don't even know you're lost. Your only hope is to ask for forgiveness of your sins, repent and plead for mercy from God. For all you have done is stored up greater wrath upon yourselves. The wrath of God will come in the here and now as far as loss of quality of life, loss of blessing,.. And the here after as far as eternity of gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain, suffering. Forever. So go ahead, Mock. jeer, smirk. I'm dusting off the dust of ya'll.

May God have mercy on your souls...

What are you talking about? you are the one mentioning carbon dating with your discussion about rate of decay. I didn't make any statement about carbon dating's validity. All I am saying is that evolution is based not only on this but also on genetics, evolutionary computer program testing, selective breeding, ...

[waauw]

Waauw, you're doing a good job, but the best that you're going to get outta this is practicing your typed English. These two guys substitute knowledge, philosophy, and the scientific method with their divinely inspired, cognitive bias. They're not here to learn from you; they're here to get on a platform and project their frustrated vomit all over us.

Yeah but I'm having fun on this side
For some reason I'm getting a kick out of this

[chang50]

This is twice waauw is referencing carbon dating. Could someone please tell him this is not carbon dating discussion above. And carbon dating has been proven to be too wildly inaccurate to discuss seriously. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, yet you refute it. That is so funny. You are saying "not uh" and you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I've given ample evidence. I will not throw the pearls before the swine no longer. I will teach and tell others.

You are dead men walking that don't even know you're lost. Your only hope is to ask for forgiveness of your sins, repent and plead for mercy from God. For all you have done is stored up greater wrath upon yourselves. The wrath of God will come in the here and now as far as loss of quality of life, loss of blessing,.. And the here after as far as eternity of gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain, suffering. Forever. So go ahead, Mock. jeer, smirk. I'm dusting off the dust of ya'll.

May God have mercy on your souls...

What are you talking about? you are the one mentioning carbon dating with your discussion about rate of decay. I didn't make any statement about carbon dating's validity. All I am saying is that evolution is based not only on this but also on genetics, evolutionary computer program testing, selective breeding, ...

He reads what he wants to read,hears what he wants to hear,sees what he wants to see,that is the creationist..

[comic boy]

More pertinently , ' God ' have mercy on the brainwashed children of these deluded Creationist fools

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.

The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

The above quote in NOT carbon dating. C14 has long since been known to be too inaccurate to be discussed seriously. This discussion above is an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes topic and focuses on the weak point of the formula, "Constant Rate of Decay". All those who are debating against this topic but calling it carbon dating, clearly doesn't recognize checkmate when you see it. You are debating something you know nothing about. Refuting something that you are clueless about and calling it by a different dating system all together, revealing your ignorance.

You essentially gave the intellectual equivalent of "not uh"... This reveals you are defending a belief that you don't fully know and more importantly, you don't want to know the truth. You are more comfortable believing what you believe, even if it is proven to be false. That is illogical fanatical religion.

You've been exposed.

[waauw]

The above quote in NOT carbon dating. C14 has long since been known to be too inaccurate to be discussed seriously. This discussion above is an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes topic and focuses on the weak point of the formula, "Constant Rate of Decay". All those who are debating against this topic but calling it carbon dating, clearly doesn't recognize checkmate when you see it. You are debating something you know nothing about. Refuting something that you are clueless about and calling it by a different dating system all together, revealing your ignorance.

You essentially gave the intellectual equivalent of "not uh"... This reveals you are defending a belief that you don't fully know and more importantly, you don't want to know the truth. You are more comfortable believing what you believe, even if it is proven to be false. That is illogical fanatical religion.

You've been exposed.

well then my appologies for my mistake. I'm not a physicist, nor am I educated in the exact sciences. My specialty is business and economics. However you still haven't proven your point of view. As I said before evolution is based on a lot of different kinds of proof. Whatever the dating system, doesn't matter.Whether or not these dating systems are correct doesn't matter either. As they are used to to determine the speed of evolution. Evolution can be seen in genetic similarities, artificial selection, computersimulations, etc.

Also you keep on failing to prove your Bible and all of it's statements, so who's the fanatical believer? You keep ignoring half the things that are mentioned in this topic. You keep turning a blind eye towards massive parts of the argumentation. Where is your admission that evolution is not a circular reasoning(and again this has nothing to do with the validity of the exo-circle arguments)? Where's your admission that not all pieces of land get covered by the same amount of dirt every year? etc.

Your conclusion that I'm an illogical fanatical religious person is inconclusive too. Is it because someone makes a mistake in 1 aspect, that he is wrong on every single thing that he mentions? Because I am pretty sure every single person on the planet has made a mistake somewhere along his lifetime, but that doesn't mean every single person on the planet has made nothing but mistakes. Of course I'm exagerating here, but nonetheless I think it's relevant.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I've given ample evidence. I will not throw the pearls before the swine no longer. I will teach and tell others.

Hey, we agree on something!

In that spirit, here's the wikipedia page describing a scientific study empirically proving evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.

Until you can show studies of equal standing (i.e. peer reviewed in reputable journals) disproving the above results, please go waste oxygen in another part of the internet.

bye bye.

P.S.

You are dead men walking that don't even know you're lost. Your only hope is to ask for forgiveness of your sins, repent and plead for mercy from God. For all you have done is stored up greater wrath upon yourselves. The wrath of God will come in the here and now as far as loss of quality of life, loss of blessing,.. And the here after as far as eternity of gnashing of teeth, wailing in pain, suffering. Forever. So go ahead, Mock. jeer, smirk. I'm dusting off the dust of ya'll.

May God have mercy on your souls...

I love it when you guys show your true colors. Religion is fear of death, plain and simple. I'm truly sorry you have been unable to come to terms with the nature of human existence without having to appeal to iron age myths to assuage your fears. Oh well.
At least you can look forward to spending an eternity in your heaven watching us heathens burn. Such is your iron age god of love.

[universalchiro]

Hey, we agree on something!

In that spirit, here's the wikipedia page describing a scientific study empirically proving evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.

Until you can show studies of equal standing (i.e. peer reviewed in reputable journals) disproving the above results, please go waste oxygen in another part of the internet.

E. Coli...... AFTER ALL THE ADAPTATIONS,,,, IT'S STILL BACTERIA!!! THIS IS THE OBVIOUS THAT YA'LL MISS. AND WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT IS NOT THERE...

This is laughable. There is no evolution here, this an another example of adaptation and the viewers falsely interpreting the results. This is merely adaptation. Something no one disputes. What is disputed is no matter how many adaptations occur, no matter how much the environment changes and causes changes to the kinds, THEY'RE STILL THE SAME KIND! Evolutionist have faith in the unproven, they have faith in a flawed hypothesis. Below is 1 of many reasons why evolution is hokum and a faith based belief.

YOUR SO CALLED EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION ONLY PROVES BACTERIA ADAPTS, THAT IS OBVIOUS. THAT'S NOT EVOLUTION. BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA!!

BELOW IS PROOF ON NO EVOLUTION:

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

[Symmetry]

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

/thread. Turns out that the US patent system was the proof,

[john9blue]

seems to me like chiro believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

chiro, do you think that microevolution (like the bacteria) can happen to an extent that prevents reproduction? if so, doesn't that invalidate your example?

[Symmetry]

seems to me like chiro believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

chiro, do you think that microevolution (like the bacteria) can happen to an extent that prevents reproduction? if so, doesn't that invalidate your example?

Are you, to even a micro extent, saying that evolution is true?

[john9blue]

seems to me like chiro believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

chiro, do you think that microevolution (like the bacteria) can happen to an extent that prevents reproduction? if so, doesn't that invalidate your example?

Are you, to even a micro extent, saying that evolution is true?

evolution is true to a very macro extent. most people don't realize how many facets of life follow the laws of evolution and survival of the fittest.

[Symmetry]

seems to me like chiro believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

chiro, do you think that microevolution (like the bacteria) can happen to an extent that prevents reproduction? if so, doesn't that invalidate your example?

Are you, to even a micro extent, saying that evolution is true?

evolution is true

And it only took what seemed like millions of years for you accept that you're an evolutionist,

[john9blue]

evolution is true

And it only took what seemed like millions of years for you accept that you're an evolutionist,

lol what?

symmetry once again thinking the world is black and white. you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, my man.

i will give you literally ALL of the internets if you can find a single post of mine saying that evolution isn't true. have fun wasting your time.

[universalchiro]

seems to me like chiro believes in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

chiro, do you think that microevolution (like the bacteria) can happen to an extent that prevents reproduction? if so, doesn't that invalidate your example?

Great question! Thank you for presenting this. Here is your answer:

Life can adapt/specialization to extent that prevents reproduction. Such as the Mule and the Liger. But does this invalidate my example? Negative. For example: A wolf is not likely to mate with a German shepherd because of geographical limitation. And a female Great Dane can't be fertilized by a male Maltese because of selective breeding to different sizes, they are physically incapable. But the key is, that they are still the same kind. So from the adaptation of the wolf to different environments and with mankind doing selective breeding, we have 1,000's of breed of dogs. And not all can reproduce, but all are still dogs.

There is no evolution even though they can't reproduce. So there are two examples where reproduction doesn't occur, 1. Geographical limitations. 2. Physical limitation. But they are still the same kind. So massive adaptation is demonstrated, yet no evolution, for they are still dogs.

And this is how it is for all kinds of creatures on earth. From the fish, snakes, dogs, cats, cattle, equine, birds, even insects. They all adapt, and extensive adaptation can cause either sterility or inability to reproduce with original kind, but they are still the same kind. NO Evolution.

Even when adaptation gets too far away from the kind, the creature will become sterile. But let's say for argument sake, that the distant adapted creature is not sterile, it still can't fertilize another different kind of creature different than it's original kind. Why? A. the female egg has a shell that only allows exclusive male sperm to dissolve her shell for fertilization. B. The female pituitary gland releases hormones to attract only exclusive same kind of creature. Not different kinds. C. The mutated creature in this scenario that has drifted due to adaptation away from the origin of their kind, would not be attractive to the female of the original kind, for in nature the males have the color and the female selects the one with the best brightest and biggest male of the same kind. The mutated creatures are usually weaker, and usually sterile anyways.

Summary: I accept micro-evolution. We see this all the time. In biology this is called adaptation and/or specialization. I reject Macro-evolution. There is no fossil record of transitional creatures, there is no transitional living creatures now and there is ample evidence of exclusivity of the breeding process to prevent Macro and there is ample evidence that life on earth is not as old which we are being told. And massive amounts of years is a foundational requirement of evolution.

Finally someone asks a serious question, instead of one liners that adds nothing to the debate. And just reveals that lack of credibility you have and further solidifies your prognosis of faith based hypothesis and believing what you believe even when it's proven wrong.

[Jippd]

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

It would be possible for an animal of a different type to develop this enzyme due to a defect in their gene code.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, we agree on something!

In that spirit, here's the wikipedia page describing a scientific study empirically proving evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.

Until you can show studies of equal standing (i.e. peer reviewed in reputable journals) disproving the above results, please go waste oxygen in another part of the internet.

E. Coli...... AFTER ALL THE ADAPTATIONS,,,, IT'S STILL BACTERIA!!! THIS IS THE OBVIOUS THAT YA'LL MISS. AND WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT IS NOT THERE...

This is laughable. There is no evolution here, this an another example of adaptation and the viewers falsely interpreting the results. This is merely adaptation. Something no one disputes. What is disputed is no matter how many adaptations occur, no matter how much the environment changes and causes changes to the kinds, THEY'RE STILL THE SAME KIND! Evolutionist have faith in the unproven, they have faith in a flawed hypothesis. Below is 1 of many reasons why evolution is hokum and a faith based belief.

YOUR SO CALLED EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION ONLY PROVES BACTERIA ADAPTS, THAT IS OBVIOUS. THAT'S NOT EVOLUTION. BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL BACTERIA!!

BELOW IS PROOF ON NO EVOLUTION:

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

lol. Where'd you get your doctorate, and in what exactly?