Post Any Evidence For God Here

[TA1LGUNN3R]

As far as anyone knows, all life comes from life. Non-life producing life has never been observed. Abiogenesis is a myth. Belief in that abiogenesis occurred at some point requires faith. Faith can be defined according to Webster's Dictionary as " firm belief in something for which there is no proof ". The fact all life comes from life is one piece of evidence that suggests there is a God, an Eternal Life force, that always existed. All existing life comes from life and the law of biogenesis strongly suggests this.

Biogenesis serves as one premise for the argument that God exists.

This is complete malarkey. "Non-life producing life" has never been observed because we're talking about spans of time that far exceed any human lifespan or even societies. We're talking about many thousands of years. You can't say that it's impossible because it hasn't been observed by humans in real-time, that is just small-minded. That's like saying the Earth is flat because you've never walked around it yourself.

Here you go: Viruses. They aren't "alive," and yet they propagate by hijacking the hosts' cells. Or prions, which don't even have nucleic acids. It's quite possible that a mutation could lead to something we would define as "life."

-TG

[natty dread]

This will be my last post at this discussion.

Yes, what a brilliant debate strategy. When you can't think of any more arguments, just announce that you're not posting anymore, and rehash everything you've already posted as if it was a new argument. Wow, I haven't seen that one before. Oh wait, yes I have.

I am going to clearly lay out several pieces of evidence

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

As far as anyone knows, all life comes from life.

No. All currently existing life that we can directly observe, comes from life.

Abiogenesis is a myth.

Asserting it doesn't make it so.

Belief in that abiogenesis occurred at some point requires faith.

Belief in anything requires a certain amount of faith. Who's to say you're not a brain in a jar hooked up to a very sophisticated computer simulation? Solipsis and all that. Anyway, since there's no way to falsify that hypothesis, it's safe to assume that it's not the case. As long as the laws of the universe are consistent, and we can observe them functioning as they are supposed to, it's safe to assume that the universe is real.

Furthermore, abiogenesis is the best current explanation we have for the beginning of life, since it does not require an external, unfalsifiable creator to create life. We can deduce how life most likely has

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2% ... experiment

The fact all life comes from life is one piece of evidence that suggests there is a God

So your argument is "we can't directly observe the beginning of life, therefore, goddidit".

Energy has always existed according to the law of energy conservation.

The law of energy conservation makes no such claim. Even if it did, it still would not imply "goddidit". The universe could be cyclic for all we know.

Life can be defined as energy.

Marshmallows can be defined as seasponges. After all, they look sort of alike, so yeah, it makes sense, right?

Everything has energy. Not everything is alive. Life != energy.

The energy that animates our bodies.

IT'S ALIVE!

The law of energy conservation suggests there was an Eternal Life, an Energy that always existed.

Does not.

Since life has always existed in the form of the Eternal Energy abiogenesis is not needed.

1. Abiogenesis is false.
2. Because abiogenesis is false, "eternal energy*" has always existed.
3. Because "eternal energy" has always existed, abiogenesis is false.

♲

*) eternal energy: translation = "this thing that is basically god but i won't call it god because i want to pretend to be 'scientific'"

The question "who created God" is answered with God always existed. If that answer is hard to understand perhaps the law of energy conservation can help. Energy doesn't need to be created since it has always existed.

The question "who created tooth fairy" is answered with "tooth fairy has always existed". If that answer is hard to understand, perhaps the law of tooth conservation can help. Teeth don't need to be created because they grow in your mouth already.

Does this make sense to you?

Law of energy conservation does not imply that energy has always existed. You assume it does, and base your premise on it. Then you attribute an "intelligence" to this energy because, hey, why not. Your whole argument is a series of assumptions, which have nothing to do with logic or evidence.

Why do I suppose the Eternal Energy that always existed is intelligent? One reason is the words of Rich Deem that I quoted in an earlier post.

Which have been refuted, debunked and thrown in the trashcan numerous times already.

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe.

No, there is not. This is absolute drivel.

The universe contains only 1080 baryons

Lolwut? The universe contains a lot more baryons than that.

has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec).

Ok. By what kind of twisted logic do you get 1018 seconds from 13.7 billion years???

Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec)

It's the smallest observable unit. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that events couldn't happen in smaller intervals.

There's no framerate to the universe.

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

And even this is wrong. 1080 x 1018 x 1045 = 1148914800

To prove all of this wrong very simply, here's an excercise for you:

Grab a set of playing cards and deal them out face up, one at a time. When the first card is dealt, the probability of it being whatever it is, is 52-1, the probability of the second card being whatever it is is then 51-1, giving a combined probability of 2652-1. Once you have got through the deck, the probability of you having dealt those cards in that order is a staggering 8x10^67 in one, which is pretty much "nearly zero", yet you just managed to do it!

[Metsfanmax]

Wow, this guy is the best troll I've seen in a long time.

[john9blue]

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

And even this is wrong. 1080 x 1018 x 1045 = 1148914800

i had to look at this for a bit, but i think he's using powers of ten, just insert an exponent sign between the 10 and the rest of the number.

[natty dread]

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

And even this is wrong. 1080 x 1018 x 1045 = 1148914800

i had to look at this for a bit, but i think he's using powers of ten, just insert an exponent sign between the 10 and the rest of the number.

Ok, but it still doesn't validate the rest of the premise, which is extremely silly.

He's claiming that the most improbable event that can happen is one with probability of 1 in 10^143. Which is an extremely silly idea. I already proved you can deal a deck of cards one by one, and whatever order the cards come in, the probability of that order is 8*10^67. If you take 2 decks of cards, the probability of any order of cards increases to 6.4*10^287. So you need less than 2 decks of cards to invalidate the whole premise of his argument.

Continuing from where I left off:

The unlikely odds the universe could even sustain life serves as a premise for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

No, it does not. This is a standard fundie argument from incredulity. "It seems too incredible for me to comprehend, therefore it must be false and goddidit." Right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The clear design in the universe suggests that the Eternal Energy is intelligent.

What "clear design"? Where is the evidence of that "clear design"? You haven't presented a single piece of credible evidence of this "design", you just keep asserting it.

I feel my brain melting when I read this drivel.

There was a cause to the big bang. Does anything at all happen with out a cause? The cause of the big bang very well could have been the energy that always existed.

Ok. So let me get this straight, once again...

1. everything must have a cause
2. therefore, the universe/big bang has a cause
3. the cause of the universe/big bang must be "the energy"
4. the energy doesn't need to have a cause, because... you say so?

We have no evidence that anything else existed before the universe. We do have evidence the energy existed before, and outside the universe in the law of energy conservation.

Please don't spew out that "conservation of energy" argument again. It's already established that the law of conservation of energy (from hereon, LOCOE for short) doesn't claim that energy has always existed, nor does it even imply it. LOCOE simply states that energy does not disappear and is not created from nothing. It applies to the existing universe only. It says nothing about the conditions outside/before the existence of universe.

We have no evidence that anything existed before the universe, period.

Warning: we get to even stupider stuff from here.

Throughout history there have been constant reports of spiritual events, ghost stories, and metaphysical activity world wide.

Ah, the old "5 billion flies can't be wrong, shit tastes good" argument. Go on...

There is no naturally atheistic culture. Every culture has a spiritual aspect to it with their beliefs on ghosts, the afterlife, and other related topics.

Every human is born atheist. There is no inborn knowledge of religion or god. It is all taught to us by external sources.

So anyway... because lots of people believe something, it must be true? If you can't see the inherent fallacy of that assertion, you are a true moron.

There have been countless people, who have claimed to witness supernatural events from the beginning of recorded history. Can all these people be lying, crazy, or mistaken?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I rest my case.

If just one person who has claimed to see a ghost is telling the truth ghosts exist. There are thousands and thousands of reports. Is it really logical to believe they are all wrong?

Yes, if there is no evidence of any of them telling the truth.

Reality does not conform to the popular opinion. Sorry, but reality is not a democracy. I know it seems unfair, but you can't vote what is real and what is not. Reality is what it is, and even if 99% of all people who ever lived believe(d) something, it does not make it true.

logical

Please, look up what this word actually means.

The fact so many people claim to have seen an apparition of a spirit, and all cultures have a spiritual aspect is the last premise I will use for my argument here. There are many others, but it would be very time consuming to state, and give details about. I think these serve nicely for this discussion. One would have to believe all the supernatural reports ever reported are the creations of either lunatics, liars, or people who are mistaken. The odds of this are clearly very unlikely.

A lot of people used to believe (some still do) in Odin, Zeus, Ba'al, Izanagi, etc. Are they all real too?

You should apologize to the entire forum for bringing down the average IQ ten points with this post of yours.

So the argument I have presented is that there is a Creator. My premises that support this conclusion are:

All existing life comes from life, and the law of biogenesis strongly suggests this.

Right, all currently existing life. Law of biogenesis is something that was put forth by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century. Even so, it does not address the origin of life at all, only the reproduction mechanism of currently living organisms.
Refuted.

The law of energy conservation serves as another premise for the argument that God exists. It answer's questions about God's existence. It proves the Eternal Energy didn't need a creator, which is in accordance with the general idea of "God".

LOCOE does not imply what you want to attribute to it. You are making hasty conclusions with shoddy pseudo-logic.
Refuted.

The unlikely odds the universe could even sustain life serves as a premise for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The razor thin laws of physics supports this. The clear design in the universe suggests that the Eternal Energy is intelligent.

Argument from incredulity. Just because something is improbable does not make it impossible. Also, "goddidit" is not a viable alternative, not without evidence.
Refuted.

The countless witnesses are the last of the premises. It is illogical to assume they are all liars, crazy, or mistaken. The huge number of reports makes this even less likely.

Argumentum ad populum. Refuted.

These premises here are a few of the reasons I and many others conclude there is an Intelligent Designer. The article calls for evidence, and evidence has been provided.

Nope. You have provided opinions and unfounded assertions, and your attempts at logic have been refuted numerous times.

To reason against the existence of a God is to try to prove a negative which is impossible.

Ok, you have just confirmed you do not understand logic or science. Just because you can't prove something false, it does not mean it is automatically true. In fact it's the exact opposite. If you can't prove something false, it's not a viable scientifical theory!

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Even if it's one desire to attempt to prove a negative this discussion isn't about disproving God, but rather evidence that supports His existence.

Again, no one is out to disprove god. You are the one trying to prove god, which you claim you have done, but in fact haven't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are the one making the claim that you have proof for god. You have been called out on it, and the "proof" you have provided is not actual proof, it's mere conjecture based on shoddy arguments and logical fallacies.

It's illogical to say nobody has ever seen God. The one making that argument would have had to survey the entire world with a polygraph machine to know that. It is more rational to believe the universe was designed with intent and purpose because as a whole that's what the evidence strongly suggests.

Another logical fallacy. Let me repeat: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim, ie. the existence of god. You can't simply say that since we can't prove that no one has ever seen god, then someone must have seen god. That's not how it works. That's plain crackpot logic, pure wingnuttery.

Again, look up the words "evidence" and "logic".

Overall, I grade you F+. The plus is for good effort and entertainment value. The rest of the grade is for failing miserably in logic, science and rational & critical thinking.

[Haggis_McMutton]

to quote someone in the GH forums(snorri i believe it was).

"I cannot spot the flaws in his logic because HE IS NOT USING LOGIC!".

Well, actually we all can, but we probably wish we couldn't.

[PLAYER57832]

This will be my last post at this discussion. The discussion called for evidence for the existence of "God". I am going to clearly lay out several pieces of evidence that taken as a whole strongly suggest their is a Creator of the universe, a God. My argument is that there is a Creator. Some of the evidence that serves as the premises for my conclusion is as follows...

As far as anyone knows, all life comes from life. Non-life producing life has never been observed. Abiogenesis is a myth. Belief in that abiogenesis occurred at some point requires faith. Faith can be defined according to Webster's Dictionary as " firm belief in something for which there is no proof ". The fact all life comes from life is one piece of evidence that suggests there is a God, an Eternal Life force, that always existed. All existing life comes from life and the law of biogenesis strongly suggests this.

No more myth than the idea that life can only come from non life. While it is proven that life comes from life, the opposite.. that no life ever can come from non-life has not been proven.

That belief is also inconsistant with the Bible, where it clearly says that we came from dust.

Biogenesis serves as one premise for the argument that God exists.

No. You don't even consider many other options.

Energy has always existed according to the law of energy conservation. Life can be defined as energy. The energy that animates our bodies. The body stops working and is considered dead once the energy leaves. Even if the cause of death is fixed after the energy leaves the body the body will not reanimate. Life/energy is required to animate the body. The law of energy conservation suggests there was an Eternal Life, an Energy that always existed. Since life has always existed in the form of the Eternal Energy abiogenesis is not needed. The First Life, the Eternal Energy or "God" wasn't created. Energy doesn't need to be created because it always existed. The Eternal Energy that existed before the universe is the root of all other life forms.

You also misunderstand this concept.. and take it WAY beyond anything anyone has or can prove.

The law of energy conservation serves as another premise for the argument that God exists. God is understood as Life, and life energy. Energy always existed. The question "who created God" is answered with God always existed. If that answer is hard to understand perhaps the law of energy conservation can help. Energy doesn't need to be created since it has always existed.

While I agree that God always existed, any human law regarding energy is irrelevant. We cannot even begin to know enough about the universe yet to make any such statement. We do have the Bible, but that is, scientifically speaking, belief, not facts that anyone disputing the Bible would accept and therefore irrelevant to THIS argument.

Why do I suppose the Eternal Energy that always existed is intelligent? One reason is the words of Rich Deem that I quoted in an earlier post. (the numbers that are not percentages last 2 digits are to the power. There is an exception with the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe equasion. The last number sequence's last three digits are to the power.)

Now you go from merely making belief into fact and into something strange. As much as I believe in God, etc, this you state here is neither in the Bible, nor in any predominant Judeo -Christian theme. Rather, it is akin to those who see codes in the language of the Bible itself. NONSENSE.. from a Christian perspective.

" The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life.

Not proven, not even known to be true. We see only a very small portion of the universe.

What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect." Mr. Deem goes on to demonstrate "
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec), the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history."

The unlikely odds the universe could even sustain life serves as a premise for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The clear design in the universe suggests that the Eternal Energy is intelligent. There was a cause to the big bang. Does anything at all happen with out a cause? The cause of the big bang very well could have been the energy that always existed. We have no evidence that anything else existed before the universe. We do have evidence the energy existed before, and outside the universe in the law of energy conservation.

Uh.. no. NO from a scientific perspective and downright scary that you attempt to present this as some kind of truth in Christianity.

But... I will leave further objections to Neoteny.

Throughout history there have been constant reports of spiritual events, ghost stories, and metaphysical activity world wide. There is no naturally atheistic culture. Every culture has a spiritual aspect to it with their beliefs on ghosts, the afterlife, and other related topics. There have been countless people, who have claimed to witness supernatural events from the beginning of recorded history. Can all these people be lying, crazy, or mistaken? If just one person who has claimed to see a ghost is telling the truth ghosts exist. There are thousands and thousands of reports. Is it really logical to believe they are all wrong?

The fact so many people claim to have seen an apparition of a spirit, and all cultures have a spiritual aspect is the last premise I will use for my argument here. There are many others, but it would be very time consuming to state, and give details about. I think these serve nicely for this discussion. One would have to believe all the supernatural reports ever reported are the creations of either lunatics, liars, or people who are mistaken. The odds of this are clearly very unlikely.

This is the only part that even comes close to being anything like proof. Still, it falls short. People have believed many things throughout time that we now know to be absolutely untrue.

Also, I am not sure you can truly call the Buddist belief to be a truly theist belief, but that gets into some other issues.

So the argument I have presented is that there is a Creator. My premises that support this conclusion are:

All existing life comes from life, and the law of biogenesis strongly suggests this.

The law of energy conservation serves as another premise for the argument that God exists. It answer's questions about God's existence. It proves the Eternal Energy didn't need a creator, which is in accordance with the general idea of "God".

The unlikely odds the universe could even sustain life serves as a premise for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The razor thin laws of physics supports this. The clear design in the universe suggests that the Eternal Energy is intelligent.

The countless witnesses are the last of the premises. It is illogical to assume they are all liars, crazy, or mistaken. The huge number of reports makes this even less likely.

These premises here are a few of the reasons I and many others conclude there is an Intelligent Designer. The article calls for evidence, and evidence has been provided. To reason against the existence of a God is to try to prove a negative which is impossible. Even if it's one desire to attempt to prove a negative this discussion isn't about disproving God, but rather evidence that supports His existence. It's illogical to say nobody has ever seen God. The one making that argument would have had to survey the entire world with a polygraph machine to know that. It is more rational to believe the universe was designed with intent and purpose because as a whole that's what the evidence strongly suggests.

Uh.. no.

If you want to believe this... go ahead, but under no circumstances should you pretend this constitutes anything approaching real proof or that it counters anything considered real and true in science. You don't even hold to the Bible truly.

[Neoteny]

I don't think I'm going to respond to seriously to this individual since he or she appears to be leaving. I just want to leave the following: if you have five seconds to roll a dice to get a result that usually happens once every 20 seconds or so (1 roll per second say, 1 in 20 odds), it is still possible for that event to happen. Saying otherwise shows a misunderstanding of the very elementary aspects of probability. Please learn how to write exponents (or stop with the copypasta, which seems likely). You could have saved so much Planck time with a bit more clarity.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow, this guy is the best troll I've seen in a long time.

I beg to differ. Lionz could at least forumlate occasional reasonable sentences...

[CreepersWiener]

I THINK I'VE FOUND IT!!!!

[notyou2]

I think that is proof we are descended from apes.

[CreepersWiener]

I think that is proof we are descended from apes.

Very well, it might be. God may have created bananas to fit perfectly into an apes hands. Is evolution an invention of God?

How about peanut butter? Surely the evidence is undeniable in the case of jars of peanut butter of which humans make by the billions of jars every year.

[Pirlo]

Q: Does evolutionism necessarily oppose creationism? I mean, can be there a gray area in which creationists and evolutionists meet? or not?

In brief please!

[pmchugh]

Q: Does evolutionism necessarily oppose creationism? I mean, can be there a gray area in which creationists and evolutionists meet? or not?

In brief please!

No. Though you can say God started evolution or even "guides" it, this would still be evolutionism not creationism.

I THINK I'VE FOUND IT!!!!

This is one of my favourite videos of all time.

[pimpdave]

Like in 2001, how the black obelisk appears every time the alien species guiding our development intervenes. It's not actually a god, but to our primitive and under evolved minds, we can only comprehend the aliens as being deity.

[natty dread]

I THINK I'VE FOUND IT!!!!

[Pirlo]

Q: Does evolutionism necessarily oppose creationism? I mean, can be there a gray area in which creationists and evolutionists meet? or not?

In brief please!

No. Though you can say God started evolution or even "guides" it, this would still be evolutionism not creationism.

I THINK I'VE FOUND IT!!!!

This is one of my favourite videos of all time.

Thanks love!

[The Bison King]

Forgive me if this piece of evidence has been covered, but I think that "fucking rainbows, after it rains" is all the proof I need!

[Lionz]

Pirlo,

It's apparent to me that things bring forth variety through reproduction. Who shares common ancestry though? Similarity in creatures on even a genetic level can be attributed to both common ancestry and a common designer.

If you were to design several different types of creatures on a computer program you would end up having an artistic signature in your work. You might end up finding eyes and arms and more to be both functionally useful and aesthetically pleasing and end up using eyes and arms on several original designs from a start. Should we look at eating utensils or limbs of living creatures and assume any similarity between either of the two groups would automatically be the result of common ancestry?





And what does the fossil record actually have to say? Pastes below from http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html with color added by me.

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))



You might argue life didn't come from a rock, but is that not essentially what many hold to be true if many figure that a big bang occured and earth cooled down and formed a hard rocky crust before being rained on and bringing forth life from amino acids?

Whether or not life came from a rock is beside a main point. What suggests to you that roses and dogs share common ancestry, if you stand by universal common descent or a theory of punctuated equilibrium that was proposed largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record that cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages?

You might bring up some radiometric dating method, but is there ANY that does not assume a starting point and a constant rate of decay? If you were going to create your own three dimensional space and let beings with free will interact within it on spheroids suspended on nothing, would you wait billions of years for the spheroids to load? It's not logical to assume earth was created from a random distribution of dust particles coming together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years if we are trying to figure if that happened in the first place. It's not logical to assume the flood did not occur if we are trying to figure out if it did in the first place.

Pimpdave,

Are there any humanoids from outer space on earth who are not angels? Sure there aren't rebel angels and others influencing the History Channel who want you to think they are primate evolving alien deities? Genesis 6:1-4. Daniel 2:42-45. Daniel 11:38-39. Obadiah 1:4. Isaiah 24:20-24.

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen6.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/dan02.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/dan11.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/obadyah.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa24.htm

Note: There's a difference between knowing something for sure and something being clearly apparent. How about do not take a lack of arrogance as a lack of confidence, but I'm inserting the word maybe before every non-quote period before this sentence. How about we love all and be careful what we trust and weigh evidence for ourselves and try to make good decisions based on evidence?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Excuse me while I go vomit.

-TG

[john9blue]

that was the most assertive post i've ever seen from lionz. not everything is a question anymore (well it technically is supposed to be, but reading posts that explicitly treat it as such can be tiring).

Excuse me while I go vomit.

-TG

man, f*ck you, you didn't even read his whole post lol

[natty dread]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

that was the most assertive post i've ever seen from lionz. not everything is a question anymore (well it technically is supposed to be, but reading posts that explicitly treat it as such can be tiring).

Excuse me while I go vomit.

-TG

man, f*ck you, you didn't even read his whole post lol

I read it. Lost it at comparing forks to homologous structures. Or the classic, "oh the eye is too complex to have been a random mutation, it just works too perfectly." Or this quote that shows a distinct lack of acknowledgement of how fossilization works:

...If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life...

Yeah, because everything that's ever died automatically becomes a fossil, which are so easy to dig up on a planet with a crust volume of about 5x10^19 cubic meters.

-TG

edit: Oh it was discussed on the first page. Silly me, thinking that this issue wouldn't have been talked about already in this thread:

Any proof is a steaming pile of shit. Any priest who says otherwise is a liar. If someone happens to believe, I do not hold it against them, but I hate it when people bring up "Irreducible Complexity of Evolution" or other pseudo science that makes their religion seem to be more accurate then science.

[Neoteny]

Lionz, could you do me a favor and explain what Lovtrup meant by "micromutations?"

that was the most assertive post i've ever seen from lionz. not everything is a question anymore (well it technically is supposed to be, but reading posts that explicitly treat it as such can be tiring).

It is much easier to read. The internet changes people... over time.

[CreepersWiener]

Excuse me while I go vomit.

-TG

Yes, vomit may indeed be evidence of the existence of God. For if He is indeed the creator of all that is beautiful and bountiful, He must also be the creator of all that is disgusting and irreputable. And as God sows miracles by the buttload, His plan does not disallow the cheapening of human life...no matter how young and fragile.

For instance, let's take the tornadoes that ripped through Indiana.

I know that that was quite a devastating ordeal, and I mean no offense by bringing this up. I think it is important to understand the WILL OF GOD.

After the killer tornadoes ripped through Indiana, I remember the news media reporting on the MIRACLE BABY FOUND IN A FIELD. My father talked about the miracle baby and how angels must have protected her when the rescuers found her in a field. However, her entire family was killed. Which made the story very sad and the hope of a miracle little bundle of joy found laying in a field that much more AWESOME!

And then...a day or two later...the baby died. Miracle? What was so miraculous about this?

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/weathe ... rnado-dies

I mean people are so desperate to prove the existence of a fictitious entity that they are willing to delude themselves into thinking miracles exist.

The truth is...Miracles DO NOT EXIST! All things have a natural explanation, just because you are unable to understand something doesn't mean it is a miracle or supernatural...it just means it is yet to be understood.

For every so-called miracle of a person beating cancer, I am sure there are a number of instances of children being tortured and abused. Where is God for them? Where is the evidence of His mighty existence for the innumerable creatures that suffer at the end of everyday?

The very fact that God Himself does not use His power to stop evil from happening either shows one of two things:

1. There is no God
2. God is Evil

If anything, at least the atheistic forms of Satanism acknowledge the natural world and its laws of survival and need for consumption. That the world is compelled to consume the weak and the innocent. I guess that is why Jesus had said that this World belongs to Satan, he (or whoever wrote the story) had a good understanding of the natural world in which we are enmeshed. Satan becomes more of a philosophical idea rather than an actual Dark Lord of Hell.





Just as you read this forum, safe in your own home, living your truly consumptive lives away; remember that at the very same time somewhere in the world and Universe there is a giant crocodile ripping a baby gazelle in half while it is yet alive. Worse yet, the mother abandoned its own baby to save her own miserable gazelle life. You are no different than either the crocodile or the gazelle.



More than not...perhaps worse!