Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Lootifer]

I'd be happy too. First off my info was ridiculed for being false without thorough research. And the rest of my info, I see was accepted. A better approach from someone who wants truth, is to just plainly ask, "Please provide evidence".
Here is your evidence:

Magazine: Chemical & Engineering News, November 21, 1983. Page 42. "Chemist at Argonne National Laboratory have succeeded in making a type of artificial coal from naturally occurring materials. The process is much less severe than formerly thought to be necessary and provides some new insights into coal structure and how to alter it..."
Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it and its synthesis raises many interesting questions in coal chemistry.

How does this work? Wood is made up of Lignin (a binding agent) and Cellulose fibers.
Lignin + Clay + Heat (150* Celcius) + time (8 months) - O2 (vacuum) = 100% coal. Indistinguishable from other coal by all techniques.
Reference: Hayatsu et al. Organic Geochemistry, Volume 6, pp 463-471, 1984

This is all discussed in a youtube video between the following time slots:
From the 4:30 mark to the 20:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12jUKnPbHI

So now you have proof positive of what I said is true. And your claim of what I said as being false is wrong. What you do with this will reveal how dedicated you are to your faith in your belief in 4.6 billion year old earth to add validity to Evolution.

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

Ok...

Not once did I say in my post that you cannot make synthetic coal. That is coal that is physically* no different to normal coal dug up out of the ground.

What I did say is that when tested that synthetic coal will no doubt return a radiometric age of the original source material (in this case lignin).

The two articles you linked do not cover if they radiometrically tested the samples [in the publically available material] (I doubt they did as they were researching synthetic fuals, not how old the earth is), and I am not willing to pay for the articles myself.

Again; do you have evidence that they radiometrically tested the synthetic coal samples, and if so, that they returned an age of 20 million years?

fyi:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cen-v061n047.p042
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 316a0.html

edit:
Ooooh but one article lists its references; nothing on radio or carbon dating

Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it

Luke 16:19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Atheist: "Hey Christians, show me a sign, give me proof that your God exist"
Christians reply: "You have Moses and the Prophets, if you will not be persuaded by them, you won't be persuaded by further proof"

Evolutionist: "Hey Christians, what is the scientific evidence of your God? Give me proof and maybe I'll consider hearing more."
Christians reply: "You have Moses and the Prophets, if you won't listen to Moses and the Prophets, you won't be persuaded even when proof comes in seals, bowls and trumpets".

Firstly I am more than willing to accept evidence of god; its largely the fundamental reason why I am agnostic rather than an atheist.

Secondly once again saying something is indistinguishable without knowing exactly what they used to test this does not support your assertion that radio-dating is completely bunkum.

For example. Say we have two balls. One is red and one is blue; other than the difference in colour they are identical.

I could quite rationally make the statement "these balls are indistinguishable from the one another by all the techniques so far applied to it ".

However someone could come along and ask "oh did you check the optical spectrum? 'cause one of those balls is red and the other blue"

I am not challenging statement that the coal samples are indistinguishable from each other under various tests (from the references section the main test looks to be mass spectrometry). I am asking you for evidence that they used radio-dating between the two samples, and if so did both the sample return 20million year old results.

I say this because two samples can essentially be identical when tested using mass spectrometry (I personally have done a fair bit of this kind of testing), but could quite easily return hugely radio-metric ages.

Now you are an intelligent man, can you please be intellectually honest in this?

[codeblue1018]

Short answer, no.

Know you might be judgementally mistaken.

Doubtful mate; hopefully for your sake, you have a change of heart once you near your end. Then again, what do I know.

[codeblue1018]

I'd be happy too. First off my info was ridiculed for being false without thorough research. And the rest of my info, I see was accepted. A better approach from someone who wants truth, is to just plainly ask, "Please provide evidence".
Here is your evidence:

Magazine: Chemical & Engineering News, November 21, 1983. Page 42. "Chemist at Argonne National Laboratory have succeeded in making a type of artificial coal from naturally occurring materials. The process is much less severe than formerly thought to be necessary and provides some new insights into coal structure and how to alter it..."
Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it and its synthesis raises many interesting questions in coal chemistry.

How does this work? Wood is made up of Lignin (a binding agent) and Cellulose fibers.
Lignin + Clay + Heat (150* Celcius) + time (8 months) - O2 (vacuum) = 100% coal. Indistinguishable from other coal by all techniques.
Reference: Hayatsu et al. Organic Geochemistry, Volume 6, pp 463-471, 1984

This is all discussed in a youtube video between the following time slots:
From the 4:30 mark to the 20:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12jUKnPbHI

So now you have proof positive of what I said is true. And your claim of what I said as being false is wrong. What you do with this will reveal how dedicated you are to your faith in your belief in 4.6 billion year old earth to add validity to Evolution.

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

Ok...

Not once did I say in my post that you cannot make synthetic coal. That is coal that is physically* no different to normal coal dug up out of the ground.

What I did say is that when tested that synthetic coal will no doubt return a radiometric age of the original source material (in this case lignin).

The two articles you linked do not cover if they radiometrically tested the samples [in the publically available material] (I doubt they did as they were researching synthetic fuals, not how old the earth is), and I am not willing to pay for the articles myself.

Again; do you have evidence that they radiometrically tested the synthetic coal samples, and if so, that they returned an age of 20 million years?

fyi:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cen-v061n047.p042
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 316a0.html

edit:
Ooooh but one article lists its references; nothing on radio or carbon dating

Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it

Luke 16:19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Atheist: "Hey Christians, show me a sign, give me proof that your God exist"
Christians reply: "You have Moses and the Prophets, if you will not be persuaded by them, you won't be persuaded by further proof"

Evolutionist: "Hey Christians, what is the scientific evidence of your God? Give me proof and maybe I'll consider hearing more."
Christians reply: "You have Moses and the Prophets, if you won't listen to Moses and the Prophets, you won't be persuaded even when proof comes in seals, bowls and trumpets".

Firstly I am more than willing to accept evidence of god; its largely the fundamental reason why I am agnostic rather than an atheist.

Secondly once again saying something is indistinguishable without knowing exactly what they used to test this does not support your assertion that radio-dating is completely bunkum.

For example. Say we have two balls. One is red and one is blue; other than the difference in colour they are identical.

I could quite rationally make the statement "these balls are indistinguishable from the one another by all the techniques so far applied to it ".

However someone could come along and ask "oh did you check the optical spectrum? 'cause one of those balls is red and the other blue"

I am not challenging statement that the coal samples are indistinguishable from each other under various tests (from the references section the main test looks to be mass spectrometry). I am asking you for evidence that they used radio-dating between the two samples, and if so did both the sample return 20million year old results.

I say this because two samples can essentially be identical when tested using mass spectrometry (I personally have done a fair bit of this kind of testing), but could quite easily return hugely radio-metric ages.

Now you are an intelligent man, can you please be intellectually honest in this?

What kind of evidence do you need mate? The evidence is in the bible; whether or not you choose to believe the words or not is entirely up to you. Not one of us here will sway you one way or another nor can anyone here provide "proof" simple as that. I understand your reasoning regarding agnostic over atheist, that said, you do believe in a higher power in Jesus or no? I was brought up in the Catholic Church, however, there are things in Catholicism that I now disagree with. I consider myself a Christian now.

[Lootifer]

The synthetic coal thing bugs me greatly.

I take a particular issue with the debunking of good science (radio-dating) due to making a false assertion. I do not read any other posts in this thread.

[Gillipig]

God, save me, oh god, I am your slave, your dirty asslicking servant, mhm, I will rim your ass if you ask me, oh please god, ask me to rim your ass!!

[crispybits]

Strange how a simple yes/no question like "Is it possible to enter heaven without accepting Jesus as saviour?" can cause so many long winded replies all of which fail to give the simple yes/no the question needs for a proper answer...

Short answer, no. Long answer that explains things well; reference univeralchiro's above response.

The only divergence UC offered from the short answer is that those who witness the creator through the creation and accept that "truth" will also be allowed in. But I could genuinely believe that the universe was created as a childhood science experiement by a sufficiently advanced race of aliens from another dimension and exists in a test tube in another aspect of reality. That belief would be entirely consistent with accepting that the universe was created and has a creator, but would hardly be justification for worshipping this alien child as the supreme moral authority and saviour of our eternal souls (even if it could be proved there exists such a thing as an eternal soul, which thus far has not been achieved).

[jonesthecurl]

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

First hand testimonial: Many times I've heard (not an audible voice) a voice not my own say, "slow down, there is a cop around the turn". So I slowed and sure enough there was a police officer with his radar gun.

In 2003 I had $250 to my name. With monthly bills for my new clinic mounting to $6,500/monthly. I didn't have enough money to pay the electric bill for the clinic. I was about to lose my clinic & home. But God provided: random attorneys would often call asking for a doctor that I had never heard of. When I would tell the attorney that I had never heard of that doctor, they would ask me to be their clients doctor & treat them. This happened so many times that from 2004 on I did not advertise at all. But yet now I am retired with the interest on investments triple what my monthly bills are. I've been retired for one year & have no plans of working again. This is in spite of losing $200,000 & wiped out in 2000 stock crash & $250,000 in the 2009 stock market crash.

I was blessed by the hand of God to retire wealthy at the age of 43. I backed into greatness via His mighty hand. A doctor that doesn't advertise should not thrive like I did. Too many attorneys called me by accident looking for another doctor & then they tell me to treat their client? They were directed by God.

As strong as a first hand testimonial is, that's not the burden of proof for me. The proof that holds true for me is the Bible: The fulfilled prophecies, the knowledge of science in the Bible way before man knew things, the truth of health & diet way before doctors knew things, the historical accuracy, archeological accuracy, the uniform harmony in the Bible from cover to cover, though written by 35 authors spanning 2000+ years. The Bible alone is evidence enough of the proof of God. No book foretells of future kingdoms & people & events way before they happen. If someone really seeks truth, wants a purpose for life, the Bible holds the answers. It truly is a divine book from God.

So God helps you to get away with criminal acts and sends you money? And overcharge clients so much that you can survive the loss of a quarter of a million dollars?
Have you tried passing through the eye of a needle lately?

[Viceroy63]

Strange how a simple yes/no question like "Is it possible to enter heaven without accepting Jesus as saviour?" can cause so many long winded replies all of which fail to give the simple yes/no the question needs for a proper answer...

Short answer, no. Long answer that explains things well; reference univeralchiro's above response.

The only divergence UC offered from the short answer is that those who witness the creator through the creation and accept that "truth" will also be allowed in. But I could genuinely believe that the universe was created as a childhood science experiement by a sufficiently advanced race of aliens from another dimension and exists in a test tube in another aspect of reality. That belief would be entirely consistent with accepting that the universe was created and has a creator, but would hardly be justification for worshipping this alien child as the supreme moral authority and saviour of our eternal souls (even if it could be proved there exists such a thing as an eternal soul, which thus far has not been achieved).

That's because there is no such thing as an "immortal soul." The word of God only states that Man is a living soul and not immortal but in need of immortality. Otherwise it's all for nothing.

As for your theory of an alien child??? That theory is right there with the expanding universe having to have a beginning. This is mathematically proven that the universe must have a beginning and that any universe that spawned ours must also have by definition a beginning. The only constant must be a beginner that exist outside of the universe in a state of no time and no space. Otherwise God would also have a beginning.

This topic is clearly touch on in the Bible, thousands of years before science and math could figure it out.

And no, you can not enter into the kingdom of God without accepting Jesus as Lord in obedience. That's because you are not an immortal and will simply die and not live forever.

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."
-I Corinthians 15:53

[crispybits]

Strange how a simple yes/no question like "Is it possible to enter heaven without accepting Jesus as saviour?" can cause so many long winded replies all of which fail to give the simple yes/no the question needs for a proper answer...

Short answer, no. Long answer that explains things well; reference univeralchiro's above response.

The only divergence UC offered from the short answer is that those who witness the creator through the creation and accept that "truth" will also be allowed in. But I could genuinely believe that the universe was created as a childhood science experiement by a sufficiently advanced race of aliens from another dimension and exists in a test tube in another aspect of reality. That belief would be entirely consistent with accepting that the universe was created and has a creator, but would hardly be justification for worshipping this alien child as the supreme moral authority and saviour of our eternal souls (even if it could be proved there exists such a thing as an eternal soul, which thus far has not been achieved).

That's because there is no such thing as an "immortal soul." The word of God only states that Man is a living soul and not immortal but in need of immortality. Otherwise it's all for nothing.

As for your theory of an alien child??? That theory is right there with the expanding universe having to have a beginning. This is mathematically proven that the universe must have a beginning and that any universe that spawned ours must also have by definition a beginning. The only constant must be a beginner that exist outside of the universe in a state of no time and no space. Otherwise God would also have a beginning.

This topic is clearly touch on in the Bible, thousands of years before science and math could figure it out.

And no, you can not enter into the kingdom of God without accepting Jesus as Lord in obedience. That's because you are not an immortal and will simply die and not live forever.

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."
-I Corinthians 15:53

That's special pleading right there. "Everything has a beginning except God". That's not what the expanding universe argument says, it simply says that for any universe like ours there must have been a beginning, and that is it very unlikely (but not entirely impossible) for any universe like ours to exist without a beginning. It says nothing of universes / dimensions / aspects of reality (or whatever term you feel most comfortable with) that are not like ours, and it doesn't conclude that such strange universes cannot exist. What it definitely also does not do is place the biblical God in the eternal beginning state, that remains an unknowable unknown. I could conceive of God being one pre-pubescent member of a God-race doing a science experiment for school, or having a dream, or whatever just as easily as I could conceive of a singluar God who made the universe for whatever reason the bible gives (if it gives one, could be boredom or curiosity or any one of a million other things, only a tiny fraction of which we could ever understand).

Even if I accept that there had to be an ultimate creator, there is still an unbridgable gap between that creator and the God of your particular flavour of holy book. We could go back through level upon level of expanding universe for billions and trillions of levels and there is no good reason to suppose that what was written down on some parchment around 2000 years ago (0.00000015% of the age of the universe we live in) is communication from the ultimate creator and not some intermediary in one of those levels or simply the imaginations, philosophies and superstitions of the humans around at the time.

Say the alien child I mentioned exists in the universe one level up, and what is written down is them communicating with us. But as you say they could easily exist inside another expanding universe, and the creator of that universe might have a very different take on things than they did. How many children, if we had the capability to create and observe universes in test tubes and to communicate with those universes, would pass on exactly the teachings and messages of the bible as you perceive it. You yourself say most christians aren't really going by the true interpretation of the thing, so most children wouldn't accurately be able to pass on the message as you read it. Then consider that they may be just an experiment in a test tube for the next level up, and so on and so on. Every level of creator could have special knowledge of their own creation, sufficient to dish out prophecies or smite people or cause the laws of physics to be suspended so that a worldwide flood can occur. But every level of creator could be passing on a different message into their own created universe, and there's not even any guarantee that somewhere in the chain there aren't evil mad scientist aliens who pass on a bunch of harmful stuff just to see what happens and have a laugh at the chaos that ensues.

[tzor]

==> One wonders how he got around before. By hopping on his tail perhaps?
==> And snakes don't eat dust

That's not the strange thing. Never mind that one of the three basic editorial groups that compiled the Torah firmly believed that all animals were vegetarians until the great flood, there is the fundamental question of "how did the serpent talk?" I mean you don't find any event where animals loose the ability to talk (as you have for when animals were allowed to eat other animals) but Eve and Adam had no problems with a serpent talking. I suppose all of the animals talked at the time, but somehow they all forgot about that?

So anyway, can we get back to the symbolism? Because this whole thing was compiled and edited together. Now aside from the real honest questions in life (like why does childbirth hurt so much) the next biggest problem the wandering tribes faced was poisonous snakes. Moses even had to make a "bronze serpent" in order to heal them. So retrofitting the problems of man back on the serpent is a logical use of having the past explain the present.

So here he is ... most likely ... or not because it's SYMBOLISM

[Viceroy63]

==> One wonders how he got around before. By hopping on his tail perhaps?
==> And snakes don't eat dust

That's not the strange thing. Never mind that one of the three basic editorial groups that compiled the Torah firmly believed that all animals were vegetarians until the great flood, there is the fundamental question of "how did the serpent talk?" I mean you don't find any event where animals loose the ability to talk (as you have for when animals were allowed to eat other animals) but Eve and Adam had no problems with a serpent talking. I suppose all of the animals talked at the time, but somehow they all forgot about that?

So anyway, can we get back to the symbolism? Because this whole thing was compiled and edited together. Now aside from the real honest questions in life (like why does childbirth hurt so much) the next biggest problem the wandering tribes faced was poisonous snakes. Moses even had to make a "bronze serpent" in order to heal them. So retrofitting the problems of man back on the serpent is a logical use of having the past explain the present.

So here he is ... most likely ... or not because it's SYMBOLISM

It is possible that all snakes once walked or even flew. There are many legends of "Flying serpents" around the world. Surely this could not all be just a coincidence.

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

What Darwinist may consider a "Missing Link" in evolution or an intermediary species, may actually lend to the truth of Bible facts. That God removed the serpent from it's walking or Flying status and made it a creature to crawl on it's belly when originally it was not designed that way. Modern "Flying Snakes" (which are actually jumper/gliders), somehow have an instinct for using airflow to extend the distance that they traverse through the air. Just how would they "Instinctively" know this if snakes never flew? It only seems logical that a snake would simply fall from a tree and not purposely jump from a tree.

I would also point out the fact that losing limbs is not evolution if the species stays in it's assumed same environment. I can understand a Bear turning into a whale because there is more food in in the oceans (Really I can't even understand that) but there was a supposedly radical change in design then. To say that the snake went from being a flier or a runner to a crawler on it's belly seems to me like de-evolution. At any rate this would suggest that Perhaps God made a change in the make up of the snake when God cursed the serpent and pronounced that from now on "Ye shall crawl on thy belly and eat dust..."

The eating dust part could simply be descriptive of the fact that the snake now has to move about in the ground or on the dust of the earth.

BTW: The Serpent mentioned in Genesis was actually Satan himself and not just a snake. Satan was an angel capable of flight and speech (Revelation 12:9) and now is confined to the dust of the earth and chooses to hide himself in the dust of the earth as he has no where else to hide. Only in hiding is he most dangerous as you can't defend too well against something you can't see coming at you. Something with a low profile for example, like a snake.

Could it be that the the serpent had a certain glory to him that Satan utilized to get the attention of Adam and Eve and for this reason, this glory of serpents was removed at the time because of sin?

[jonesthecurl]

Good to see you using serious scientific sources for your arguments

[waauw]

It is possible that all snakes once walked or even flew. There are many legends of "Flying serpents" around the world. Surely this could not all be just a coincidence.

I agree with that. This is for example where I personally believe in some of the ancient astronaut theories. And here I admit it is "believe" not "think" as there is not much evidence to work on.

I would also point out the fact that losing limbs is not evolution if the species stays in it's assumed same environment. I can understand a Bear turning into a whale because there is more food in in the oceans (Really I can't even understand that) but there was a supposedly radical change in design then. To say that the snake went from being a flier or a runner to a crawler on it's belly seems to me like de-evolution.

Keep in mind that evolution does not state that all changes are beneficial.

[jonesthecurl]

Neidr wenwynig o deulu'r Viperidae yw'r wiber (Vipera berus). Fe'i ceir ar draws y rhan fwyaf o Ewrop a gogledd Asia mewn llawer o gynefinoedd gwahanol megis rhostir, twyni, corsydd a choetir agored.[1] Gan amlaf mae'r gwryw'n llwyd golau gyda phatrwm igam-ogam du ar y cefn. Mae'r fenyw'n frown neu gochaidd gyda marciau brown tywyll.[1] Mae'r wiber yn bwydo ar famaliaid bach yn bennaf ond mae'n bwyta adar, brogaod a madfallod hefyd

[tzor]

BTW: The Serpent mentioned in Genesis was actually Satan himself and not just a snake. Satan was an angel capable of flight and speech (Revelation 12:9) and now is confined to the dust of the earth and chooses to hide himself in the dust of the earth as he has no where else to hide. Only in hiding is he most dangerous as you can't defend too well against something you can't see coming at you. Something with a low profile for example, like a snake.

Considering that all throughout the Bible, Satan doesn't appear to "crawl on his belly," the punishment for the serpent, I find it highly unlikely that it was actually Satan himself. It is symbolic of Satan and may have even been influenced by Satan, but it's not Satan as it is clearly identified as an animal. Technically speaking Satan isn't properly in the Torah. He is often retrofitted back into the Torah, but he isn't mentioned until 1 Chronicles 21:1 written during the exile.

[tzor]

I would also point out the fact that losing limbs is not evolution if the species stays in it's assumed same environment.

That's an assumption without facts to back it up. You assume that it stayed in the same environment. But not only do environments change over time, creatures can move from one environment to another. Such a change doesn't have to be as drastic as earth to sea. The difference between a rain forest, a tundra, a desert or even a grassy plain are massively different and favor entirely different solutions. Evolution is the process of the favored winning out over the unfavored, all other things equally considered.

Some of the features of the sake may have evolved when the snake was more of a burrowing creature. This might have been a necessity in desert conditions but that's pure speculation. Snakes generally don't make good fossils so the record is almost non existent.

[PLAYER57832]

It is possible that all snakes once walked or even flew. There are many legends of "Flying serpents" around the world. Surely this could not all be just a coincidence.[/quote]

Snakes did walk, or their ancestors did.... they come from legged animals.

per the "flying" bit, we have snakes that, right now, can be said to "fly" in the sense that they glide from trees. Some have also been carried by wind, etc. And, then you also have the "evidence" of unicorns and mermaids.. each of which seems to be distorted tales of rhinos and various sea animals respectively. The Bible is remarkable in that it was passed down with little change, but the same is not true for every tale of humanity or even most.

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

What Darwinist may consider a "Missing Link" in evolution or an intermediary species, may actually lend to the truth of Bible facts. That God removed the serpent from it's walking or Flying status and made it a creature to crawl on it's belly when originally it was not designed that way. Modern "Flying Snakes" (which are actually jumper/gliders), somehow have an instinct for using airflow to extend the distance that they traverse through the air. Just how would they "Instinctively" know this if snakes never flew? It only seems logical that a snake would simply fall from a tree and not purposely jump from a tree.

I would also point out the fact that losing limbs is not evolution if the species stays in it's assumed same environment. I can understand a Bear turning into a whale because there is more food in in the oceans (Really I can't even understand that) but there was a supposedly radical change in design then. To say that the snake went from being a flier or a runner to a crawler on it's belly seems to me like de-evolution. At any rate this would suggest that Perhaps God made a change in the make up of the snake when God cursed the serpent and pronounced that from now on "Ye shall crawl on thy belly and eat dust..."

You are, again, mis-understanding evolution. There is no "end point", no real "ultimate design" in evolution, just adaptation and change. It is rare for species to change without a serious outside change forcing the evolution, but it can happen.

That said, yes, what evolutionists say and what the Bible say don't disagree... unless you take both the Bible and evolutionary theory way out of context or flat ignore evidence.

[waauw]

Snakes did walk, or their ancestors did.... they come from legged animals.

per the "flying" bit, we have snakes that, right now, can be said to "fly" in the sense that they glide from trees. Some have also been carried by wind, etc. And, then you also have the "evidence" of unicorns and mermaids.. each of which seems to be distorted tales of rhinos and various sea animals respectively. The Bible is remarkable in that it was passed down with little change, but the same is not true for every tale of humanity or even most.

That is not per sé true. Several of of the oldest stories in the Bible are suspected to be descendant from older religions.
For example several religions all over the globe tell of tales of someone stealing the knowledge(the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden) of the gods, and then being punished for it. And I'm not talking here about Judaism, but about religions even older like the religions of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Mayans, ancient Japan, etc.

Though one thing should be kept in mind, is that although they resemble in the core, the details in each of the stories are very different. And considering these civilizations were the first ones to develop writing systems, who knows how far back these stories might actually date back and who knows which details are true and which aren't.

[PLAYER57832]

Neidr wenwynig o deulu'r Viperidae yw'r wiber (Vipera berus). Fe'i ceir ar draws y rhan fwyaf o Ewrop a gogledd Asia mewn llawer o gynefinoedd gwahanol megis rhostir, twyni, corsydd a choetir agored.[1] Gan amlaf mae'r gwryw'n llwyd golau gyda phatrwm igam-ogam du ar y cefn. Mae'r fenyw'n frown neu gochaidd gyda marciau brown tywyll.[1] Mae'r wiber yn bwydo ar famaliaid bach yn bennaf ond mae'n bwyta adar, brogaod a madfallod hefyd

Wan the Avril????

[PLAYER57832]

The Bible is remarkable in that it was passed down with little change, but the same is not true for every tale of humanity or even most.

That is not per sé true. Several of of the oldest stories in the Bible are suspected to be descendant from older religions.
For example several religions all over the globe tell of tales of someone stealing the knowledge(the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden) of the gods, and then being punished for it. And I'm not talking here about Judaism, but about religions even older like the religions of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Mayans, ancient Japan, etc.

Though one thing should be kept in mind, is that although they resemble in the core, the details in each of the stories are very different. And considering these civilizations were the first ones to develop writing systems, who knows how far back these stories might actually date back and who knows which details are true and which aren't.

This in no way disputes what I said, which is that the bible and science don't disagree. Science cannot yet answer all questions, (likely never will, but that's besides the point), but the questions it can answer coincides with the Bible How the Bible came to be is another question and

[crispybits]

That is not per sé true. Several of of the oldest stories in the Bible are suspected to be descendant from older religions.

Probably more than most people think:

Science cannot yet answer all questions, (likely never will, but that's besides the point), but the questions it can answer coincides with the Bible

Yeah sure, if you ignore errors about both birds and insects having 4 legs, bats being classified as birds instead of mammals, the Earth being made before the Sun, the value of π, plants being created before sunlight, the many many oh so many scientific errors in the flood myth, curing leprosy by means of sacrificing a bird and sprinkling it's blood around the house, the firmament and flat and/or stationary earth.... I could go on but I think you get the picture already (of course all of these are in the symbolic bits and not the literal bits aren't they?)

Define "symbolic bits" - anything that has been proved factually incorrect / impossible
Define "literal bits" - anything that we can still shoehorn is as accurate if we interpret that particular verse in a specific (and often very linguistically stretched) way.

[Viceroy63]

I would also point out the fact that losing limbs is not evolution if the species stays in it's assumed same environment. I can understand a Bear turning into a whale because there is more food in in the oceans (Really I can't even understand that) but there was a supposedly radical change in design then. To say that the snake went from being a flier or a runner to a crawler on it's belly seems to me like de-evolution. At any rate this would suggest that Perhaps God made a change in the make up of the snake when God cursed the serpent and pronounced that from now on "Ye shall crawl on thy belly and eat dust..."

You are, again, mis-understanding evolution. There is no "end point", no real "ultimate design" in evolution, just adaptation and change. It is rare for species to change without a serious outside change forcing the evolution, but it can happen.

That said, yes, what evolutionists say and what the Bible say don't disagree... unless you take both the Bible and evolutionary theory way out of context or flat ignore evidence.

What I meant to say is that if fish evolved legs to walk on land then how is it evolutionary for creatures with limbs to go from walking to crawling on their bellies especially if they did not move back into the oceans, a different environment? Why did the creatures not crawl out of the oceans on their bellies in the first place, instead?

To me this does not appear at all logical and if evolution is anything, it is logical. Evolution dictates that those mutations which are beneficial continue to be propagated, while those that are not beneficial or useful, become "Vestigial Organs or limbs." That being the case and limbs at some point were deemed beneficial for the survival of the species, why then did snakes 'logically' evolved to lose their limbs?

Am I the only one who sees that this is not logical. At some point the snake should have died off then if limbs were not helpful in survival. And if they were helpful in survival then why did they lose the limbs?

The only answer that I can see that is completely logical and answers these questions all the way around is that Snakes were created to walk and not crawl. Then because of sin and God wanting to make a memorial of this event, God altered the snake and reduced it to a belly crawler. That is why we see archeological evidence of a supposedly 90 million year old serpent with limbs.

Again the link that supports this truth of devolution, if we can call it that, short for de-evolution.

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

So to answer the question...

==> One wonders how he got around before. By hopping on his tail perhaps?...

No, not by hopping on his tail, but by simply walking or flying around until God removed that glory from the serpent and made the creature to crawl on his belly. Just as it is also stated in the fossil records. Snakes, at least walked first (perhaps even flew) and then they became belly crawlers.

[waauw]

==> One wonders how he got around before. By hopping on his tail perhaps?...

No, not by hopping on his tail, but by simply walking or flying around until God removed that glory from the serpent and made the creature to crawl on his belly. Just as it is also stated in the fossil records. Snakes, at least walked first (perhaps even flew) and then they became belly crawlers.

what's interesting is that I made several quotes & remarks and you only respond on 1 of 'm

[jonesthecurl]

Well, if God wanted the snake to crawl on his belly, why does he allow them to glide through the air? And if they're supposed to live i the dust, why does he allow some to swim?
When did he create a female snake for the first one to mate with?
And when did he stop them talking?
And why did he creat this one animal capable of talking?

[john9blue]

to the creationists in this thread: what don't you like about the theory of evolution itself?

if you accept that not all members of a species are born with the exact same traits, and you accept that some traits can be more beneficial to survival/reproduction than other traits, and you accept that traits can be passed down genetically... then how can you deny the fact that beneficial traits will become more common over time and the species itself will change?

is there anyone here that actually doesn't believe that?