Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Gillipig]

Does this count as evidence? ............It says so in the bible!

[crispybits]

As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes

[PLAYER57832]

surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.

I have to interject here, one reason there is religion in every society is that any strong believe is or becomes religion, including atheism.

And, as has been noted many times, there is more than one atheistic religion. I think greenspwn is arguing as if religion and belief in a particular God are equivalent.

[Gillipig]

As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes

Don't forget Lord of the rings!


Wow I guess Frodo really did save middle earth. I have new found respect for him now that I know what he did for us!
Maybe he's this "Jesus" character people have been talking about!?

[tzor]

This claim is unfalsifiable. How does Jefferson know what the Almighty Stuff wants for us? Does he have access to knowledge that we don't? How?

In truth, there are no natural "rights," just privileges that a society agrees to give to its members through a social contract.

I never said he did. The fundamental problem with the social contract model is that it quickly breaks down to the argument of might makes right. The appeal to a "natural" law (which is no less an appeal to any "law" such as the laws of physics) is an appeal that individual rights are not based on the whims of the mob majority or the strongest, most charismatic person in the group. The latter will always lead to despotism and violence.

This was a major principle of the age of enlightenment. One doesn't determine the laws of physics by who has the biggest army, or my majority vote, but by careful observation on the nature of man. That nature hasn't changed much in a few hundred years (perhaps a few thousand but I doubt it even then).

That these "rights" are amendable contradicts directly the idea that they something given to us by the Almighty Stuff, let alone anything other than privileges supported by an overwhelming majority.

Than this alienable rights are no rights at all; they exist at the pleasure of the mob/despot. Welcome to slavery.

[daddy1gringo]

Does this count as evidence? ............It says so in the bible!

As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes

Don't forget Lord of the rings!


Wow I guess Frodo really did save middle earth. I have new found respect for him now that I know what he did for us!
Maybe he's this "Jesus" character people have been talking about!?

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

[comic boy]

I like Jefferson's appeal to ' Natural law ' , whether one chooses to believe such law is or is not related to a Deity is surely irrelevent to its impact on societal behaviour.

[crispybits]

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

[Gillipig]

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Sadly, strawman is as thick as religious evidence gets. Look at how beautiful this is! Read how Jesus did this! It's all subjective bs.

[GreecePwns]

I like Jefferson's appeal to ' Natural law ' , whether one chooses to believe such law is or is not related to a Deity is surely irrelevent to its impact on societal behaviour.

I agree with this, and this is really my main point. The other point is meant for another thread.

[Lionz]

Crispy,

How about we move on with page 86 stuff?

It might be easier for you to read stuff from

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/moon

and

http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_recedin ... lk.Origins)

but paste here from edit area of a page 86 post that should be read in full?

If the earth-moon system is said to be 4.5 billion or so years old and it would have been straight up in contact with earth about 1.4 billion years ago extrapolating backwards using recent data, then how much can moving continents Really do to help you? Would the moon not cause serious problems to life if it was even a little closer?

"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years."

"That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/moon

"Talk Origins is accurate in pointing out that factors such as continental location affect tidal drag, but since the closer the Moon, the stronger its pull on the Earth, the rate of change tends to get vary large. The result is that to save the old Earth model it becomes necessary to virtually eliminate the effect of the continents. "

"The alleged rate of change in the Earth’s rotation rate of only 0.02 milliseconds / years (2 seconds / 100,000 years) adds up to about one additional day per year over 4.6 billion years and paleontological evidence (see below) does not support such a low rate of change in the Earth rotation rate.
One problem with this continental movement idea is that the methods used by geologists to trace theoretical past continental movement do not yield results for the precambrian, so any attempt to use it to prove that the Earth – Moon system can be 4.5 billion years old is speculative at best.

Eugene Poliakow's paper “Numerical modelling of the paleotidal evolution of the Earth-Moon System” is an example of efforts to calculate the effect of continental movement based on actual estimates of past continental movement. Because of limitations of the methods used to estimate past continental movement, it only projects back 600 million years, but this is enough to evaluate the results. "

"The way to judge the validity of a mathematical model is to see how well it reproduces known data. Poliakow’s calculations give (as seen in the above chart) a figure of 2.91 cm/yr as the Moon’s current recession rate and 1.59 seconds / century as the rate of slowing of Earth’s rotation. The problem with these figures is that they both differ significantly from the values actually observed. The Moon’s current recession rate has actually been measured at 3.82 cm/yr, which is nearly a 3rd larger than Poliakow’s model indicates. Furthermore the slowing of Earth’s rotation has been measured at 0.8812 seconds / century which is just 55% of what Poliakow’s model indicates.

At first glance the fact that Poliakow’s model overestimates the deceleration rate of Earth’s rotation would seem to be a plus for uniformitarianism. However, the limiting factor of the age of the Earth - Moon system is the position of the Moon, not the Earth rotation rate. Since the Moon’s recession rate is actually higher than in Poliakow’s model, the error would be a clear negative. The real problem is that discrepancies between the model and real world data show there to be fundamental flaw in the model. It means that Poliakow overlooked one or more major factors that could easily nullify his results. "

"The current rate of change in Earth rotation rate is often mistakenly projected back in a straight line, but the law of physics show that the rate would be higher when the moon was closer. Even if the current rate of change is projected back in time (light blue line), the statistical curve line (purple line) is still way off. The measured rate of slowing is about 8.836 milliseconds per year. (Based on data from the CRC Hand Book of Chemistry and Physics.)

The rate indicated by the statistical curve is 13.14 milliseconds / year. The result is that there is no correlation between paleontological data and projections based on direct observation of the changes in the Earth's rotation. This is further evidence against the accuracy of using paleontological data in estimating tidal effects on Earth's rotation rate. It indicates that the apparent trend in paleontological data has some other cause.

This data does not support the alleged rate of change in the Earth rotation rate of only 0.02 milliseconds per year (2 seconds in 100,000 years) from #2. This rate of change only adds up to about one additional day per year over 4.6 billion years. "

"When it is added to the chart it is essentially a flat line (orange line) and there is no indication of of such a flat line in the data. But according to the model needed to save uniformitarian time scales, it must be there. Yet it is not there. "
-http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)

Do you have any evidence not based on circular reasoning and uniformitarianism assumptions that suggests earth is more than 6,000 years old?

PLAYER,

Did death exist before Adam or did it not?

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (KJV)"

[AAFitz]

If the earth-moon system is said to be 4.5 billion or so years old and it would have been straight up in contact with earth about 1.4 billion years ago extrapolating backwards using recent data, then how much can moving continents Really do to help you? Would the moon not cause serious problems to life if it was even a little closer?

"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that t

From the wick: The Moon is thought to have formed nearly 4.5 billion years ago, not long after the Earth. Although there have been several hypotheses for its origin in the past, the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body.

And to use your format: Does it not make sense that any movement from the Earth would not in any way be perfectly linear, since as it gets further and further away, the Gravity would be less and it would necessarily accelerate over time?

If your answer isn't yes, I feel bad for you.

[Lionz]

Huh? Are you trying to argue that the distance did not increase at a faster rate in the past?

[Metsfanmax]

"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years."

"That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/moon

It's telling that these people say things like "evolutionist astronomers." An astronomer doesn't need to believe in evolution in order to understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system. It's completely separate science.

The argument you seem to be making is that there's no idea that we've had that can "save" the conventional explanation (which of course is that the Earth-Moon distance is a function of tidal friction on the Earth). But this is simply false. The fact that if we extrapolate the current rate backwards, we get something significantly younger than 4 billion years, does not mean we don't understand the physics; it just means the physics is too complex for that simplistic model. Tidal dissipation on the Earth is very complicated; it occurs mainly due to the oceans (the continents have nothing directly to do with it), which are what significantly deform in response to the Moon's gravitational force. The model you refer to basically assumes that the tidal dissipation effects scale linearly with the force of the Moon's gravity; but the oceans are a very non-linear system, and it's not very surprising that this assumption does not hold.

[Lionz]

You might need to copy and paste to get parenthesis in for address, but how about check here if you're basically rewording stuff from a Talk Origins page? http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_recedin ... lk.Origins)

How much would life be messed with if the moon was even a little closer? If you are going to counter evidence for young earth like modern models are not complex enough to explain why there would be an apparent contradiction with conventional timescales, do you have any evidence not based on circular reasoning and uniformitarianism assumptions that suggests earth IS more than 6,000 years old? What is your biggest piece of evidence if you think you have more than one?