Post Any Evidence For God Here

[The Bison King]

the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die?

See, you don't seem to be grasping the ramifications of *omnipotent*.

omnipotent = he could have saved the kid, make it so that he's adopted by a rich family so he doesn't need to steal, make the convenience store owner win the lotto and make me find a 20 dollar bill on the ground without braking a sweat

No matter what the goals, omnipotent = he can achieve those goals AND eliminate suffering
Therefore, if there is an omnipotent god, he actively wants, or at best is indifferent to our suffering. Therefore, he is kind of a dick.

Yeah your theory kind of hinges on god actually caring about human life. Perhaps there is an omnipotent god, but whose to say he gives a shit.

[Haggis_McMutton]

the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die?

See, you don't seem to be grasping the ramifications of *omnipotent*.

omnipotent = he could have saved the kid, make it so that he's adopted by a rich family so he doesn't need to steal, make the convenience store owner win the lotto and make me find a 20 dollar bill on the ground without braking a sweat

No matter what the goals, omnipotent = he can achieve those goals AND eliminate suffering
Therefore, if there is an omnipotent god, he actively wants, or at best is indifferent to our suffering. Therefore, he is kind of a dick.

Yeah your theory kind of hinges on god actually caring about human life. Perhaps there is an omnipotent god, but whose to say he gives a shit.

yeah, and that would make him kind of a dick from our PoV.

That's all I was saying.

[CreepersWiener]

the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die?

See, you don't seem to be grasping the ramifications of *omnipotent*.

omnipotent = he could have saved the kid, make it so that he's adopted by a rich family so he doesn't need to steal, make the convenience store owner win the lotto and make me find a 20 dollar bill on the ground without braking a sweat

No matter what the goals, omnipotent = he can achieve those goals AND eliminate suffering
Therefore, if there is an omnipotent god, he actively wants, or at best is indifferent to our suffering. Therefore, he is kind of a dick.

Yeah your theory kind of hinges on god actually caring about human life. Perhaps there is an omnipotent god, but whose to say he gives a shit.

yeah, and that would make him kind of a dick from our PoV.

That's all I was saying.

Omnipotence does not constitute valiant actions on the part of said deity. Therefore, the only conclusion that I can come up with is that either:

1. There is no God
2. If there is a God, He is not a mercifully kind one, one that enjoys causing strife like a Prankster

If you do not believe in the concepts of evil/good or right/wrong, then you more than likely fall into the camp of There Is No God; however, if you do believe in those specific concepts...how on earth can you believe that God is a good and merciful deity especially if He is considered omnipotent? It's like the Chewbacca Defense:



Further, if a truly merciful, all powerful Creator actually existed; then why not create us as just pure energy beings? That way there would be no hunger, no pain, etc. All we would have to do is just absorb energy and never have to worry about having to poop or pee! Wouldn't that be great! I know if I was God that's what I would have created instead of complex lifeforms scavenging to survive day-by-day.

The Satanic nature of God is quite clear to me as well as Him not giving a shit about me. Therefore, I do not give a shit about Him. No need to dwell on His existence or worshiping something that doesn't give two flying fucks about you!



God Shuffled His Feet

After seven days
He was quite tired so God said:
"Let there be a day
Just for picnics, with wine and bread"
He gathered up some people he had made
Created blankets and laid back in the shade

The people sipped their wine
And what with God there, they asked him questions
Like: do you have to eat
Or get your hair cut in heaven?
And if your eye got poked out in this life
Would it be waiting up in heaven with your wife?

God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him

So he said:"Once there was a boy
Who woke up with blue hair
To him it was a joy
Until he ran out into the warm air
He thought of how his friends would come to see;
And would they laugh, or had he got some strange disease?

God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him

The people sat waiting
Out on their blankets in the garden
But God said nothing
So someone asked him: "I beg your pardon:
I'm not quite clear about what you just spoke
Was that a parable, or a very subtle joke?"

God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him

[Lionz]

TA1LGUNN3R,

Gould himself said the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. And I'm not 100% sure this refers to the same Gary Parker, but...

"En route to his B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and Ed.D. in Biology/Geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation."

-http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

Neoteny,

I'm not sure what Lovtrup meant by micromutations or evolutionary change and it's not my favorite quote. Who argues that horses and zebras don't share common ancestry?

CreepersWiener,

"9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/john9.htm

Do we know what others did before being born or how much others deserve to suffer or how much anyone else suffers to begin with? There might be hungry Ethiopian kids who are victims of physical abuse and happier than Brad and Angelina.

Things were created good. Individuals have free will and can choose to love and hate as a result. One or more very powerful angel associated with time itself and the planet earth rebelled and helped screw stuff up. The devil's a real conscious being referred to as the prince of this world and the prince of the power of the air.

"21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

21:40 When the master therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt21.htm

Christ actually addresses why the Father has not done more concerned with stepping in with an angelic police force already in Matthew 13.

"13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt13.htm

And that helps lead back to talk concerning mainstream science. If we're told in Luke 4:5-6 that power and glory of all kingdoms of earth was delivered to the devil and Psalm 2:1-3 claims that nations conspire and people imagine vain things as the result of kings and honorable people consulting with one another against YHWH, then we should actually expect mainstream media and public education systems to try lead people away from faith in Him.

Is there any evidence outside simple verses for a worldworld conspiracy focused on leading people towards being secular and rejecting Him? There's symbolism associated with Egypt and freemasonry right on one dollar bills next to Latin that means Declaration of the Beginning of a New Secular World Order or something similar to that. Freemasonry is called the Craft, it has a degree system, and it's associated with goat images and upside down stars in pentagons. It shouldn't be hard to find similarities between it and witchcraft whether things are coincidences or not. And I don't remember being taught a thing about it at any point in elementary through high school in the United States despite kings and U.S. presidents and congressmen and many other very famous people being members. And what is limited to freemasonry? Look into Bohemian Grove and Skull and Bones and more. Bush and Kerry were essentially the two choices of a recent presidential election as Skull and Bones brothers who graduated from Yale only two years apart.

“Only small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.” - Marshall McLuhan media ‘guru’.

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
- Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

"24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that YHWH shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.

24:22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.

24:23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when YHWH of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa24.htm

I stepped away from computer since starting reply and getting some quotes and I'm not 100% sure if this is free from misquotes. Also, same disclaimer or whatever from earlier.

[BigBallinStalin]

I love the color scheme, Lionz. It's absolutely fab.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

I'm not sure what Lovtrup meant by micromutations or evolutionary change and it's not my favorite quote. Who argues that horses and zebras don't share common ancestry?

I don't know. How confident do you feel about this quote?

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.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

TA1LGUNN3R,

Gould himself said the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. And I'm not 100% sure this refers to the same Gary Parker, but...

"En route to his B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and Ed.D. in Biology/Geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation."

-http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

There are a few problems with his "there would be millions of transitional fossils." First, the whole transition scheme isn't widespread across the population. In order for speciation or transition into a new kingdom to occur, a percentage of the population must be sequestered from the rest, otherwise genetic mutation cannot take place. This means that the founding populations for new forms of life are incredibly small compared to their later evolutionary descendents, which branch out themselves into new species and are more numerous. So of course we're going to find more fossils of modern mammals and reptiles than their common ancestor.

Second, we'll assume from unicellular--->multicellular organisms: Pretty unlikely that this ever fossilized because organisms such as these rarely do... they lack the structures that are often mineralized in bone or exoskeletons. Not to mention that they are microscopic, and finding them is pretty much astronomical in odds. And that's just a general observation; simpler organisms are less likely to fossilize, which means much of the early evolution is difficult to find.

Third, there are some examples, including the "fish that crawled out of the water" Tiktaalik. This fish is probably the transition from fish to tetrapods. Which just reinforces my point: one single genus (actually there's only one species in that genus) of fish, which occupied shallow waters close to land, an extremely small percentage of the earth's volume, gave rise to all the amphibians, dinosaurs, reptiles, mammals, etc., that populated land (and water in the case of whales and such).

The problem with creationists is that they tend to misquote Gould and misuse his theories as evidence for their own agenda. When Gould said there was a rarity of transitional life forms, it was to forward his own theory of "punctuated equilibrium," and that there's more to evolution than the strict genomic heredity and natural selection (which is also supported by others).

-TG

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

Here's more.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected the use of 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, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." (J.E. O’Rourke)

"Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (J.E. O’Rourke)

"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from." Quote goes on. "And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record." That’s Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows it’s circular reasoning.

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the concern of the public (In other words, it is none of your business) or…it can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice…. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning." (J.E. O’Rourke)

TA1LGUNN3R,

If punctuated equilibrium was proposed largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record that cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, then what does suggest there is universal common descent?

There's no good reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... fishy-fish

Coelacanth was considered extinct for almost 65 millions years and considered the missing link between fish and tetrapods before being found off the coast of South Africa. What's changed about it or others?



If you want to discuss strata and fossils and how rare fossils are and where fossils generally come from in reality, then how about address these? It's apparent to me that the flood actually occured.



















There were pics earlier that were not my own pics with my own words and there are some here too and I'm not sure if I'm misquoting. Same note from earlier.

[Neoteny]

I'm going to download that journal article when I'm at work today, and I'll explain my issue with all of your quotes later today, or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, how would you feel if I did the following? What would you think of my integrity?

Who argues that horses and zebras don't share common ancestry?

By reading this quote, it's clear that Lionz supports evolution, and so should everyone else.

[PLAYER57832]

[quote="Lionz"] Lionz. Stop it. ALL of those so-called "points" were answered, mostly by me, but also by Neoteny and others in the young earth creationist thread.
Fro a couple of quick reminders ---
Those fish are classic Creationist disinformation garbage. The fish obviously died in the process of trying to eat those other fish.. note that they often look unusually large, so the fish may well have choked. Anyway, then both settled to the bottom, were covered with mud and eventually became fossils just like any other fish fossil.

The so-called "Bryce looks just like this test tube" similarly ignores the direct evidence that you can actually see if you were ever to visit the park (which, by-the-way, I have done). Each of the layers in Bryce has layers within it. Folks don't just look and say "hey, different colors.. must be different ages". It took a long track of thinking, studying and observing to figure out what happened.

And no, paleontologists don't use circular reasoning, not really.


And don't even think about debating me again here in this thread. Go back and answer the points I already brought up, follow the citations and stop being lazy.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm going to download that journal article when I'm at work today, and I'll explain my issue with all of your quotes later today, or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, how would you feel if I did the following? What would you think of my integrity?

Who argues that horses and zebras don't share common ancestry?

By reading this quote, it's clear that Lionz supports evolution, and so should everyone else.

Neoteny, before spending any time, I suggest you revisit the young Earth Creationism thread again. Most of the points were already brought up, either by you or I or someone else.. and ignored.

[natty dread]

But see, that's exactly what lionz does... he comes here debating his creationist ideas, with lots of maybes and perhapses and i might be misquoting for all i knows, and when his ideas are debunked and people get frustrated enough with his brick wall tactics that no one wants to debate him anymore, he disappears to lurk for few months... Then, when he figures everyone's forgotten about him, he shows up on the forums again, posting the same arguments that were refuted the last time, preferably with a new victim that doesn't yet know him well enough to stay away...

I don't really understand what he gets out of it, but the pattern is noticeable.

[Neoteny]

I'm going to download that journal article when I'm at work today, and I'll explain my issue with all of your quotes later today, or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, how would you feel if I did the following? What would you think of my integrity?

Who argues that horses and zebras don't share common ancestry?

By reading this quote, it's clear that Lionz supports evolution, and so should everyone else.

Neoteny, before spending any time, I suggest you revisit the young Earth Creationism thread again. Most of the points were already brought up, either by you or I or someone else.. and ignored.

I know full well what I'm getting into. I just like it for some reason.

[Neoteny]

I'm going to download that journal article when I'm at work today, and I'll explain my issue with all of your quotes later today, or maybe tomorrow. In the meantime, how would you feel if I did the following? What would you think of my integrity?

Who argues that horses and zebras don't share common ancestry?

By reading this quote, it's clear that Lionz supports evolution, and so should everyone else.

Ok, so I did download the article, but the pdf is done in a way that I can't find a way to copy and paste the text. So, you just have to trust me when I say those quotes are seriously misleading.

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

I do support evolution depending on definition, but it's apparent to me that there's not universal common descent.

Player,

Died choking on other fish and then managed to avoid being found by scavengers and aerobic decomposers and anaerobic decomposers before fossilizing? Also, each of the layers in Bryce has layers within it? And? How about find me an example of something I ignored in a young Earth Creationism thread?

Natty,

Any need for character attack? I just read replies to my last post and simply get weary of similar arguments back and forth myself.

Same note or whatever from earlier.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

I do support evolution depending on definition, but it's apparent to me that there's not universal common descent.

That's beside the point. The point is that I could use that quote to defend "universal common descent." That would be lying, would it not?

[BigBallinStalin]

But see, that's exactly what lionz does... he comes here debating his creationist ideas, with lots of maybes and perhapses and i might be misquoting for all i knows, and when his ideas are debunked and people get frustrated enough with his brick wall tactics that no one wants to debate him anymore, he disappears to lurk for few months... Then, when he figures everyone's forgotten about him, he shows up on the forums again, posting the same arguments that were refuted the last time, preferably with a new victim that doesn't yet know him well enough to stay away...

I don't really understand what he gets out of it, but the pattern is noticeable.

This may be true, but I still enjoy it. I get to learn about evolution and biology from Teacher Neoteny, Teacher TG, PLAYER, and others.

[2dimes]

Hey Lionz how's it going? I hope maybe you're doing very well, perhaps.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

But see, that's exactly what lionz does... he comes here debating his creationist ideas, with lots of maybes and perhapses and i might be misquoting for all i knows, and when his ideas are debunked and people get frustrated enough with his brick wall tactics that no one wants to debate him anymore, he disappears to lurk for few months... Then, when he figures everyone's forgotten about him, he shows up on the forums again, posting the same arguments that were refuted the last time, preferably with a new victim that doesn't yet know him well enough to stay away...

I don't really understand what he gets out of it, but the pattern is noticeable.

This may be true, but I still enjoy it. I get to learn about evolution and biology from Teacher Neoteny, Teacher TG, PLAYER, and others.

Go to the head of the class.

btw I had a dream last night about Jack Nicholson wearing a dinosaur outfit, just so you know.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

But see, that's exactly what lionz does... he comes here debating his creationist ideas, with lots of maybes and perhapses and i might be misquoting for all i knows, and when his ideas are debunked and people get frustrated enough with his brick wall tactics that no one wants to debate him anymore, he disappears to lurk for few months... Then, when he figures everyone's forgotten about him, he shows up on the forums again, posting the same arguments that were refuted the last time, preferably with a new victim that doesn't yet know him well enough to stay away...

I don't really understand what he gets out of it, but the pattern is noticeable.

This may be true, but I still enjoy it. I get to learn about evolution and biology from Teacher Neoteny, Teacher TG, PLAYER, and others.

Go to the head of the class.

btw I had a dream last night about Jack Nicholson wearing a dinosaur outfit, just so you know.

-TG

[Maugena]

Neoteny,

I do support evolution depending on definition, but it's apparent to me that there's not universal common descent.

Player,

Died choking on other fish and then managed to avoid being found by scavengers and aerobic decomposers and anaerobic decomposers before fossilizing? Also, each of the layers in Bryce has layers within it? And? How about find me an example of something I ignored in a young Earth Creationism thread?

Natty,

Any need for character attack? I just read replies to my last post and simply get weary of similar arguments back and forth myself.

Same note or whatever from earlier.

Oh my fucking god! Lionz IS STILL HERE! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

[MeDeFe]

Neoteny,

I do support evolution depending on definition, but it's apparent to me that there's not universal common descent.

This is correct perhaps? Maybe whales and mice can not procreate with each other after all?

[natty dread]

Neoteny,

I do support evolution depending on definition, but it's apparent to me that there's not universal common descent.

This is correct perhaps? Maybe whales and mice can not procreate with each other after all?

Watch out medefe, you might be misquoting for all I know.

[MeDeFe]

Neoteny,

I do support evolution depending on definition, but it's apparent to me that there's not universal common descent.

This is correct perhaps? Maybe whales and mice can not procreate with each other after all?

Watch out medefe, you might be misquoting for all I know.

I would never* do such a thing! Never!

I am shocked and appaled that you would even consider it!

*Unless it was significantly more entertaining than not misquoting, but this is Lionz, man. There's no need to misquote.

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

You mean a quote concerning horses and zebras?

2dimes,

Hello hello.