Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Neoteny]

Yes.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

Died choking on other fish and then managed to avoid being found by scavengers and aerobic decomposers and anaerobic decomposers before fossilizing?

Exactly like ANY dead fish that became a fossil. Just so happens this was a "Two for one" job.

Also, each of the layers in Bryce has layers within it?

Pretty much. Not playing the word game here, though. Fact is a test tube that looks superfically the same as a picture of Bryce proves nothing.. but knowing that takes understanding a tad bit of real science.

And? How about find me an example of something I ignored in a young Earth Creationism thread?

My answers to the above, among other points.. but I am NOT getting dragged into another discussion of that here. Go visit that thread and actually read my answers this time.

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

Is there a creationist who argues that chihuahuas and great danes share no common ancestry? Does it not seem like creatures actually bring forth variety kind of fast if you consider how many dog breeds existed 1,000 years ago?

Player,

How would creatures regularly manage to sit on the bottom of bodies of water (choking or not) and get buried from slow accumulation of sediment without being eaten by other fish or aerobic or anaerobic decomposers, if you claim that's the case? And what do layers prove whether there are layers within layers or not? And how about let me know if you actually find even a single question to me that I failed to address or move on?

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

Is there a creationist who argues that chihuahuas and great danes share no common ancestry? Does it not seem like creatures actually bring forth variety kind of fast if you consider how many dog breeds existed 1,000 years ago?

Would it be fair to use quotes expressing that creationist's belief in recent variation as evidence that they support Darwinian evolution? Would that be wrong?

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

How would creatures regularly manage to sit on the bottom of bodies of water (choking or not) and get buried from slow accumulation of sediment without being eaten by other fish or aerobic or anaerobic decomposers, if you claim that's the case?

Why do you assume they were slowly buried. Mostly, they were not. That is part of how they became fossils.

And what do layers prove whether there are layers within layers or not? They prove that whomever thinks the two pictures are the same know nothing about Bryce Canyon or sedimentation.

And how about let me know if you actually find even a single question to me that I failed to address or move on?

Instead, try finding one case where you actually answered a question I posed? The above is about as close as you have EVER come.

[Frigidus]

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!

Holy shit, how did I miss this? Lionz! Tell us about your opinions!

[notyou2]

The fact that a finger and a thumb can hold the roach of a joint so perfectly is proof there is/are a god(s)

[Phatscotty]

The fact that there are some things that were written in the Bible 5,000-2,000 years ago that turned out to be solved by the microwave and the realization that God is not bowling every time we hear thunder proves beyond a doubt that there is no God.

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

If I say something that backs up a theory I do not stand by 100%, then I say something that backs up a theory I do not stand by 100%. What's wrong with simply quoting someone and are you getting at something said by Eldredge?

PLAYER,

1) There might be fossils in sedimentary rock as a result of more than one flood, but when is something quickly buried under several feet of sediment without some sort of flooding involved and when did I personally assume something was slowly buried?

2) How much of an expert on geology are you if you said one or more thing in the past like you thought C14 dating was not a radiometric dating system? And who can't find something that claims Bryce Canyon was carved over millions of years if Psalm 2:1-3 is true?

3) Do you want me to play a game with you for shits and giggles and point out a question? You might kind of act like you think you're an expert on alot and ask little to no question in general, but on 4/28/2010 you misunderstood something said concerning beetles and actually asked a question to me as a result and I answered it later that day?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&start=285

Now where's an unaddressed question from you to me anywhere on cc forums? How about we lay off character attack and have a friendly discussion that does not involve us talking about eachother over and over?

Frigidus,

What do you want an opinion on?

[BigBallinStalin]

Lionz, could you maybe perhaps ask me a question?

[Lionz]

What would motivate you to try to get me to ask you a question, BBS?

[Timminz]

What would motivate you to try to get me to ask you a question, BBS?

POTY

[BigBallinStalin]

What would motivate you to try to get me to ask you a question, BBS?

Don't you already know the answer to that question, Lionz? If you seek within, shouldn't you be able to find it?

[Army of GOD]

f*ck tha police comin' straight from the underground
young jigga's got it bad 'cause I'm brown

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

If I say something that backs up a theory I do not stand by 100%, then I say something that backs up a theory I do not stand by 100%. What's wrong with simply quoting someone and are you getting at something said by Eldredge?

O'Rourke I thought. But I don't really remember. My point has been, though, that you are using these quotes deceptively. You have presented them as critical of evolutionary theory, when, nearly universally, they are critical of how the relevant theories are presented, or rhetorical questions that are answered later, or something similar. By just posting these within the context of a discussion of the veracity of evolutionary theory, it is intellectually dishonest. It is a lie.

We can talk about horses and zebras if you want, but I sort of want to ensure that I feel like you are intentionally lying to me all the time.

[jimboston]

[jimboston]

[jimboston]

Though I believe it's actually a misquote... I still like it.

[notyou2]

Here's proof of god, but it seems he only wants "all white" folks as followers.

http://www.abc3340.com/story/18945750/whites-only-convention-being-held-in-marion-county-this-week

[2dimes]

Here's proof of god, but it seems he only wants "all white" folks as followers.

http://www.abc3340.com/story/18945750/whites-only-convention-being-held-in-marion-county-this-week

That there's and example of some people that don't know what they're messing with. Matthew 13: 49-51 most likely applies here.

[Phatscotty]

The God Particle


He is beautiful!

[Neoteny]

[Lionz]

BBS,

Do you stand by universal common descent?

Neoteny,

Deceptively? Intellectually dishonest? Lie? Intentionally lying to you all the time? Are you not going a little overboard? I'm not sure what O'Rourke thinks or what you think would be quoting something in context? Is there something you want to add to a quote?

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

Deceptively? Intellectually dishonest? Lie? Intentionally lying to you all the time? Are you not going a little overboard? I'm not sure what O'Rourke thinks or what you think would be quoting something in context? Is there something you want to add to a quote?

I don't think I'm going overboard. When you misrepresent someone's words it's dishonest. If it's not intentional, then it's because you just don't care. I'm not sure which is worse. If you're not sure what O'Rourke thinks, particularly when you are quoting from a paper where he is literally writing out what he thinks, maybe you shouldn't quote him. Just because an isolated quote agrees with your perspective out of context, doesn't mean you should use it as you please. It would be like me saying the Bible says "There is no God." That statement is technically true, but contextually absurd. And it is unfair to the author, and unfair to your reader, to pretend otherwise.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS,

Do you stand by universal common descent?

Neoteny,

Deceptively? Intellectually dishonest? Lie? Intentionally lying to you all the time? Are you not going a little overboard? I'm not sure what O'Rourke thinks or what you think would be quoting something in context? Is there something you want to add to a quote?

How can one stand by something which descends? Am I in an elevator which is moving alongside it?