Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Viceroy63]

1. Are you aware of how many relevant writings have been intentionally kept from being included in the Bible?

1.
You give no definition for your version/meaning of the word relevant. What is relevant to one may not be relevant to another. You also provide no example to this statement.

2. If you consider "99.9% reliability" to be a miracle, you really are a fool.

2.
here you are just being insulting. You are not the kind of person who is here to discuss any evidence of God but rather to insult anyone who believes in God. So what is the point trying to talk to you since that is not the true reason why you comment in this thread?

3. None of what you posted verified the reliability of the Bible as coming from God.

3.
Again, not even just one example to discuss. Just empty accusational words without any evidence to the contrary and while attempting to give off an appearance of, "See, I am here to discuss this without insulting anyone or being a believer basher." Yeah, right???

[Woodruff]

1. Are you aware of how many relevant writings have been intentionally kept from being included in the Bible?

1.You give no definition for your version/meaning of the word relevant. What is relevant to one may not be relevant to another. You also provide no example to this statement.

My definition for the meaning of the word "relevant"? Couldn't you find a dictionary handy?

As to examples, there are a number of them which seem to have been left out of the final document simply because they were inconvenient to the story that those in power wanted told. Surely you're aware of them, right?

2. If you consider "99.9% reliability" to be a miracle, you really are a fool.

2.here you are just being insulting.

The only thing I'm insulting is the idea that something can be considered a miracle simply because it was "almost perfect". That insults the idea of what a miracle really is.

You are not the kind of person who is here to discuss any evidence of God but rather to insult anyone who believes in God.

That is absolutely not true. However, the funny thing about discussions is that they have to be a two-way street. Thus far, throughout this ENTIRE LONG THREAD, I have not seen yourself, Lionz or universalchiro bother with actual discussion. You simply try to talk over everyone else. I have actually gone to great lengths to defend religious beliefs in other threads within this forum and regularly talk with people like daddy1gringo and tzor (two individuals who DO actually have discussions with me, again you could learn from them) about religion and the good things it can do (as well as the bad, of course).

So what is the point trying to talk to you since that is not the true reason why you comment in this thread?

You may note that my responses to yourself and universalchiro seem of a different tenor than my responses to, for instance, tzor. That is because he has shown respect for opposing viewpoints whereas you do not. You get what you deserve.

3. None of what you posted verified the reliability of the Bible as coming from God.

3.Again, not even just one example to discuss.

What part of "none of what you posted" did you not understand? It's not a difficult concept.

Just empty accusational words without any evidence to the contrary and while attempting to give off an appearance of, "See, I am here to discuss this without insulting anyone or being a believer basher." Yeah, right???

Perhaps you could actually provide something that verifies the reliability of the Bible as coming from God. To help with your confusion, you can't use the Bible itself as reliable verification that the Bible comes from God. That's called circular reasoning, and you seem to have great difficulty with that concept.

[universalchiro]

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

Some people don't read the Bible or believe in the creator of the universe because the "smartest" recognized humans are saying God doesn't exist. That everything evolved by natural processes.

One of these recognized great minds, Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.

Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent (someone who believes and supports/promotes an idea) of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. Spencer was the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.

Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection. He was an agnosticism. He rejected theology and was an advocate of atheism and materialism. The last decades of Spencer's life were characterized by growing disillusionment and loneliness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

Spencer and the Nobel prize:
“A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories: time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories: time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century. Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order: time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning [that's time], God [that's force] created [that's action] the heavens [that's space] and the earth [that's matter].” In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.” –John MacArthur
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/quotations

Herbert Spencer certainly influenced many people away from the Bible and away from God. But in all his efforts to disprove God and prove evolution, that only got him to the first verse of the Bible. And again the Bible stands the test and holds the answers.

[jonesthecurl]

Well, without going through you whole thing, here's the order Spencer put them in - it's the title of his book.

Space, Time, Matter, Motion and Force

And you'll notice that he said "motion", not "action". Creation is not a motion.

[universalchiro]

Well, without going through you whole thing, here's the order Spencer put them in - it's the title of his book.

Space, Time, Matter, Motion and Force

And you'll notice that he said "motion", not "action". Creation is not a motion.

49. The conception of Motion as presented or represented in the developed consciousness, involves the conceptions of Space, of Time, and of Matter" Sincerely Herbert Spencer. Chapter 3 pg 49.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ ... &Itemid=27

Also, in physics and in science: ALL things are considered in Motion. Everything that was created is in motion. Nothing God made is not in motion.

[Woodruff]

Also, in physics and in science: ALL things are considered in Motion. Everything that was created is in motion. Nothing God made is not in motion.

Everything that God didn't create is also in motion.

As far as evolution itself goes, IF there is a God who "created everything", there is no question in my mind that evolution still holds true and that evolution is simply God's methodology for how things came to be. Of course, the whole "seven days" thing has to be recognized as metaphor for this to be accepted.

[2dimes]

Of course, the whole "seven days" thing has to be recognized as metaphor for this to be accepted.

2 Peter 3:8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

[crispybits]

Unless you're going to figuratively use "a thousand" to mean "half a billion or so" and gloss over the bit where stuff wasn't created in the correct order (plants before there was a sun there to kep them alive for instance) you are fully correct there 2dimes

[2dimes]

I was kind of going for time being something to do with us hurtling around the sun. I don't think it functions the same for God.

Is the plants created before the sun reference to something specific? I thought "light" was the first thing created here, that would be the sun.

[2dimes]

I just skimmed it.

At least in the NASB it says, Heavens, Earth, Waters then Light. Then it says he separated light from dark, called them day and night. Then there was evening and morning, one day...

[crispybits]

Genesis 1 (NIV)

Day 1 - Light (day/night)
Day 2 - Sky
Day 3 - Solid ground (land/sea) & Plants
Day 4 - Sun/Moon (Genesis 1:16 says: "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.")
Day 5 - Birds and Fish
Day 6 - Land Animals and People
Day 7 - Rest

or

Genesis 2 (NIV) has it in a different order (but not so strictly divided into days)

Earth & Heavens - Water (streams) - Men - Plants - Animals - Women

Genesis 1 is based on earlier Mesopotamian creation myths, Genesis 2 is based on earlier proto-Judaic creation myths. Take your pick (and amusing when Viceroy and universalchiro claim there are no contradictions in the bible that during the first 2 chapters of the very first book we find plenty)

[BigBallinStalin]

Um.. both are true! You cannot fathom the Mighty Awesome Mysterious Dickish Intellect of God---but Viceroy and Cairo (Ph.D. in theological nonscience) can!

[2dimes]

I wonder about translational issues there too. Day 1 has light, then Day 4 has light. Is there more than one type or source for them and they are separate? Does the first light need to be moved so there can be night? Is the first source causing his, "days" if so are they millions of years long?

Seems possible to me it's beyond even the capacity of current English to explain some things like "God's day." The story might have been recorded accurately enough in simple terms at the time. Maybe ancient Hebrew could explain some things better.

Is it contradictory or is it just told differently from more than one person's point of view? Like you mention Mesopotamian and proto-Judaic. They seem pretty similar even if one source says, "bird fur" and a second says "flying animal covering things" could they both be trying to describe feathers?

Maybe the Bible was a copy, maybe it just happens to be the same story's.

[universalchiro]

I wonder about translational issues there too. Day 1 has light, then Day 4 has light. Is there more than one type or source for them and they are separate? Does the first light need to be moved so there can be night? Is the first source causing his, "days" if so are they millions of years long?

Seems possible to me it's beyond even the capacity of current English to explain some things like "God's day." The story might have been recorded accurately enough in simple terms at the time. Maybe ancient Hebrew could explain some things better...

The Strong's Concordance codifies every word in the Hebrew and Greek to assist in the translation of original language to English.
For example: The light created on the first day is different than the light created on the 4th day. The light on the first day is luminous, while the light on the 4th day is Luminous Bodies. Whenever there are questions with interpretation, always use scripture to assist in interpreting itself.

For example: It is clear that the luminous bodies created on the 4th day are all the sun, moons stars, galaxies. For it says that we can judge signs, seasons, days and years from the creation of the luminous bodies created on the 4th day.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So it is clear what the light is on the 4th day. So we need more clarity of what the light is that was created on the 1st day. For that Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Okay, so here we get some clarity. The earth is laid on the 3rd day. So when the earth is being founded on the 3rd day, the angels are already there. This is the first clue. The second clue is that when angels appear, they will often light up a room. (Acts 12:7, Luke 2:9). And Satan always tries to appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), and When Jesus pealed back His humanity, He revealed His glory as a light (Matthew 17:1-13), and when Jesus comes again and reigns from Jerusalem, His glory lights up the city so that there is no night (Revelation 21:23).

Angels are created being by God (Colossians 1:16).

Therefore, the light (luminous) created on the 1st day are the angels and spirits of all that have the breath of life (this part takes several verses to establish).

Now that we know Angels are created on the 1st day. The next question is when on the 1st day? The answer comes with deduction: For each day starts with evening, darkness. Then comes morning. Therefore it stands to reason that the angels were created at the middle of the day. Now with that reveals another creation that occurred before the angels also on the 1st day, but not directly spoken of. And that is the formless and void of life earth was set in motion to rotate. This allows when the light of the angels shown on the formless and void of life earth to have evening and then morning.

"God's Day"? I'll address this in another post.

Summary (for waauw):
On the 1st day: the formless and void of life earth started rotating. the Angels were created at the mid-point. This light is a different Hebrew word than the 4th day.

On the 4th day: is a different Hebrew word for light than the 1st day and this represents the sun, moon, stars, etc. Things in the galaxies.

With the original writing in Hebrew for the entire Old Testament and mostly Greek for the new Testament, we can utilize the Strong's Concordance that codified every word to successfully be able to convert original language to English with trustworthiness and accuracy.

[jonesthecurl]

So how long ago do you believe the universe was created?

[universalchiro]

Of course, the whole "seven days" thing has to be recognized as metaphor for this to be accepted.

2 Peter 3:8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

The Genesis account of creation: is it to be taken literally? or figuratively (metaphorically)?
The writer that was moved by God to write Genesis was Moses. He also wrote the book of Exodus. We get a clue from Exodus 20 of whether to take the creation account literal or figurative. 8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

This is very clear. But if it wasn't clear enough, Moses gives further clarity in Exodus 31:12 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 13 “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy. 14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. 15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”

So Moses viewed a literal interpretation account of Genesis. And since Moses was inspired by God, Then God Himself is testifying of His own work.

Here is the reality of time. God created time on the 4th day to be submissive to what was already established. And what was that? The rotation of the earth was already set in motion on the 1st day of creation. Hence every day has the phrase, "and there was EVENING and there was Morning". Therefore, since God created time and He is sovereign over all, then even time is submissive and obedient to God's will. So when people quote 2 Peter 3:8 "1000 yrs is LIKE a day and a day is LIKE a 1000 yrs... Taking the verse in context with verse around it, this is saying God's judgment is not slow, but He is patient not wanting any to pass without hearing the gospel & repenting. It is not saying that to God 1 day is a 1000 years. It is saying God is above time and Lords over time.

Since on the 3rd day of creation, all vegetation was created; but the sun for photosynthesis wasn't created till the 4th day; and insects for pollination weren't created till the 6th day. So to take it literally there is harmony, for plants can survive one day without the sun and plants can survive 2 days without insects. But not 1,000's of years.

Jesus viewed a literal creation account. Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
And He quotes:
Genesis 2:24 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." The word for man is Adam. [Matthew 19:4-6]

So what choice does a believer in Jesus have? That Jesus knew the Genesis creation account had errors and tried to cover them up? Then he would be the devil, but then how do we explain His resurrection from the grave.
Or that Jesus didn't know there were errors in the Genesis creation account. Then how do we explain His omniscience, since John said Jesus knows all things (John 18:4).
The only option is that Jesus was accurately stating that "heaven and earth will pass away, not the smallest jot or tittle will pass from the law" (Matthew 24:35) and the word of God is truth (John 14:6), God can't lie (Titus 1:2) and therefore, what God wrote is a is literally the intention of God. For all ages to read and understand. So that no one needs to tell you what it means, you can read it for yourself, a 7 year old can read and understand.

I am one of the very few that holds to a literal Genesis account of Creation, that God created everything some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Well what about the scientist that purport that earth began 4.6 billion years ago and all the layers prove this? The flood, water bursting out of the earth (Genesis 7) and then settling according to density explains this. All trauma to the earth accelerates the aging process: floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. .. Well then if a flood killed off all life, then how did the sea creatures die? The canopy of water surrounding the atmosphere (Genesis 1:7-8) had to contain massive alkaline to lower the freezing point and when the salty water came down, some couldn't adapt. Well then what about all the evolving we see today that proves evolution? Everything that is adapting today to changes in environment, still remains the same kind. Darwin's finches were and still are finches. He proved what is known: that life adapts.

[jonesthecurl]

So you are directly opposed to the opinion of Viceroy, who bases his opinion on exactly the same evidence as you do?
Which of you is wrong?

[Viceroy63]

I wonder about translational issues there too. Day 1 has light, then Day 4 has light. Is there more than one type or source for them and they are separate? Does the first light need to be moved so there can be night? Is the first source causing his, "days" if so are they millions of years long?

Seems possible to me it's beyond even the capacity of current English to explain some things like "God's day." The story might have been recorded accurately enough in simple terms at the time. Maybe ancient Hebrew could explain some things better.

Is it contradictory or is it just told differently from more than one person's point of view? Like you mention Mesopotamian and proto-Judaic. They seem pretty similar even if one source says, "bird fur" and a second says "flying animal covering things" could they both be trying to describe feathers?

Maybe the Bible was a copy, maybe it just happens to be the same story's.

I would like to say in regards to Bible versions, that the more modern the Bible version the worse it's interpretation in comparison to the older Greek manuscripts. The discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" put to rest the question of the King James Bible being an inspired work even with all of it's flaws. Modern Bible versions may bring more clarity to a single word or topic but does vast injustice to the rest of the early manuscripts. The point is that we can not refer to the NIV (New International Version) and compare it to the King James version and claim that the Holy Bible is inconsistent because that is like if I write my own version of "Moby Dick" based on the original but not the original because it's my version and some one says, "see the conflict in the whale story?" The NIV is not an inspired work and is not "THE HOLY BIBLE" it is the NIV bible and they will never be the same book.

Now in regards to popular creation beliefs, The Gap Theory is not some new theory and has been around since the beginning of the writing of the Bible. Popular Christian beliefs however do change truth's that are right there if you dig in far enough. Current Popular Beliefs however, do not answer all of the questions as does the Gap Theory. In fact Popular beliefs only tend to raise more questions because of the common misunderstanding for example in the way that a story is told in the Bible. Not to go into a tangent but Bible stories and prophecies are told in a certain way all of the time. First you are given the big picture and then the bible goes into more detail stories and outlines and even sub-stories. Only by reading all of the facts and stories and combining them like some mathematical equation can you come to grips with the true facts which explains in full the Gap story and all of the questions and their answers.

One thing about the word "Creation" is that while translation may use the same word to describe origins it is not the same word used in the early manuscripts and have different meanings which are overlooked in light of more popular beliefs. Let's look at the verse...

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
-Genesis 1:16

That word, 'made' is "Asah" and it is Strong's word number H6213. This word does not necessarily present and act of origin or creation but making something happen like "Turning on the light switch" for example.

In Genesis 1:1 the word Created is "Bara" and it is strong's word H1254. And this word most definitely implies an act of origin or Creation.

The question is obvious, at least to me. Why is not the same word used to describe the creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars in verse :16 when it is obviously used in verse :1 if we are talking about the creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars on Day 04?

The answer is equally obvious, it is a different word because it is describing something other then the Creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you are directly opposed to the opinion of Viceroy, who bases his opinion on exactly the same evidence as you do?
Which of you is wrong?

Jones; You are not in any position to judge between me and Universalchiro because you are only pretending that you know who I am and what I believe. On several occasions in the past I have pointed out where you were simply exaggerating the point of what I posted or misunderstanding what I wrote completely.

[jonesthecurl]

Thank you Viceroy. I think you underlined my question to uchiro.
This is exactly the sort of discussion I have really wanted to see for some time, not out of any sort of malice, but out of genuine curiosity.

[Viceroy63]

Then you should begin a new thread for that about the different beliefs of different religions. This is about the question of God's existence and the evidence for that. Not a debate about different beliefs. This is exactly what I commented about before when I posted that this thread is nothing more then a bait and switch for the bashing of believers. The evidence matters not, only that you get believers to respond and off the topic in order to bash in their beliefs and call us fools for believing?

If the world were all in agreement then there would be nothing left to say. =)

[jonesthecurl]

Then you should begin a new thread for that about the different beliefs of different religions. This is about the question of God's existence and the evidence for that. Not a debate about different beliefs. This is exactly what I commented about before when I posted that this thread is nothing more then a bait and switch for the bashing of believers. The evidence matters not, only that you get believers to respond and off the topic in order to bash in their beliefs and call us fools for believing?

Yes but you well know that I tried that.
However, you and uchiro and others have told us that the evidence is "in the Bible", but do not appear to agree about what the Bible evidence is. If you think that this is not relevant to the current discussion, then I have to conclude that you don't understand what the word "evidence" means. If you can base two opinions on the same incontrovertible evidence, then the evidence is not incontrovertible - i.e. not "proof". Or, my friend, if it is, let us see you convince each other. You and Uchiro disagree on some fundamental issues. You both claim to be able to read the Bible as it was meant to be read. If one of you can sincerely convert the other to the "correct" point of view, then I (and I suspect, a lot of other cc'ers )will have more respect for you.
And that's just talking about you and uchiro. I have also seen Lionz and Jay-2-whatever his name was and a bunch of other people here claim that all you have to do is read the Bible "properly" to see the blindingly obvious truth. Which varies depending on the reader.
And at this point I'm not even talking about the Christian community worldwide and the multiplicity of voices within it, just cc creationists.
There are many voices here claiming that the Bible is in and of itself proof of a god, but you do not have one voice.
So please sort out between you exactly what it is that I'm supposed NOT to believe, and I'll engage in that argument.

[Viceroy63]

Then you should begin a new thread for that about the different beliefs of different religions. This is about the question of God's existence and the evidence for that. Not a debate about different beliefs. This is exactly what I commented about before when I posted that this thread is nothing more then a bait and switch for the bashing of believers. The evidence matters not, only that you get believers to respond and off the topic in order to bash in their beliefs and call us fools for believing?

Yes but you well know that I tried that.
However, you and uchiro and others have told us that the evidence is "in the Bible", but do not appear to agree about what the Bible evidence is. If you think that this is not relevant to the current discussion, then I have to conclude that you don't understand what the word "evidence" means. If you can base two opinions on the same incontrovertible evidence, then the evidence is not incontrovertible - i.e. not "proof". Or, my friend, if it is, let us see you convince each other. You and Uchiro disagree on some fundamental issues. You both claim to be able to read the Bible as it was meant to be read. If one of you can sincerely convert the other to the "correct" point of view, then I (and I suspect, a lot of other cc'ers )will have more respect for you.
And that's just talking about you and uchiro. I have also seen Lionz and Jay-2-whatever his name was and a bunch of other people here claim that all you have to do is read the Bible "properly" to see the blindingly obvious truth. Which varies depending on the reader.
And at this point I'm not even talking about the Christian community worldwide and the multiplicity of voices within it, just cc creationists.
There are many voices here claiming that the Bible is in and of itself proof of a god, but you do not have one voice.
So please sort out between you exactly what it is that I'm supposed NOT to believe, and I'll engage in that argument.

But we are in agreement, Universalchiro and I, when it comes to the actual Bibliical evidence of God's existence. The Prophecies, the Historical artifacts, The great events of the Bible such as Noah's Flood. All of these fool proof arguments have been and are being presented and agreed upon for the Existence of God by Universalchiro and myself. As well as in Science, the so called Vestigial Organs, The Falsehood of the Sedimentary Geological Column and not to mention the fact of that Human DNA is simply just waaayyyy to complicated to have evolved all on it's own and must have had a designer. A God. All of this evidence is what you would wish, would just go away. Or the topic changed.

This evidence is of course is rejected by atheist such as yourself and instead a debate on the belief of the creation of the Universe is put in it's place. The debate over how the universe was created does not lay to rest the evidence of the existence of God. The debate over the origin of the Universe does how ever reinforces the fact that we both believe that it was God who exist and created the universe. The debate places us both in agreement that God is.

As to "what not to believe," lets try discussing how any cell simply evolves all on it's own and how this is evidence that God does not exist? Let's talk DNA!

[waauw]

Then you should begin a new thread for that about the different beliefs of different religions. This is about the question of God's existence and the evidence for that. Not a debate about different beliefs. This is exactly what I commented about before when I posted that this thread is nothing more then a bait and switch for the bashing of believers. The evidence matters not, only that you get believers to respond and off the topic in order to bash in their beliefs and call us fools for believing?

Yes but you well know that I tried that.
However, you and uchiro and others have told us that the evidence is "in the Bible", but do not appear to agree about what the Bible evidence is. If you think that this is not relevant to the current discussion, then I have to conclude that you don't understand what the word "evidence" means. If you can base two opinions on the same incontrovertible evidence, then the evidence is not incontrovertible - i.e. not "proof". Or, my friend, if it is, let us see you convince each other. You and Uchiro disagree on some fundamental issues. You both claim to be able to read the Bible as it was meant to be read. If one of you can sincerely convert the other to the "correct" point of view, then I (and I suspect, a lot of other cc'ers )will have more respect for you.
And that's just talking about you and uchiro. I have also seen Lionz and Jay-2-whatever his name was and a bunch of other people here claim that all you have to do is read the Bible "properly" to see the blindingly obvious truth. Which varies depending on the reader.
And at this point I'm not even talking about the Christian community worldwide and the multiplicity of voices within it, just cc creationists.
There are many voices here claiming that the Bible is in and of itself proof of a god, but you do not have one voice.
So please sort out between you exactly what it is that I'm supposed NOT to believe, and I'll engage in that argument.

But we are in agreement, Universalchiro and I, when it comes to the actual Bibliical evidence of God's existence. The Prophecies, the Historical artifacts, The great events of the Bible such as Noah's Flood. All of these fool proof arguments have been and are being presented and agreed upon for the Existence of God by Universalchiro and myself. As well as in Science, the so called Vestigial Organs, The Falsehood of the Sedimentary Geological Column and not to mention the fact of that Human DNA is simply just waaayyyy to complicated to have evolved all on it's own and must have had a designer. A God. All of this evidence is what you would wish, would just go away. Or the topic changed.

This evidence is of course is rejected by atheist such as yourself and instead a debate on the belief of the creation of the Universe is put in it's place. The debate over how the universe was created does not lay to rest the evidence of the existence of God. The debate over the origin of the Universe does how ever reinforces the fact that we both believe that it was God who exist and created the universe. The debate places us both in agreement that God is.

As to "what not to believe," lets try discussing how any cell simply evolves all on it's own and how this is evidence that God does not exist? Let's talk DNA!

I'd like to remind you that many of the dialogs here in this topic have not been about the existence of a divine entity in general, but rather of specific details. Theories about the creation of the universe do indeed not disprove the existence of a God, but they do give good arguments to disprove specific elements from the genesis story. The same thing can be said about many other theories. In other words, people here are trying to disprove your version of god.

And if you want to talk DNA, then go ahead, but again the claims made in this topic have mostly been evolving around the fact that changes in DNA are proof against instantaneous creation(as told by the bible) rather than an attack on the existence of a divine entity in general. (though I admit some people here do like to extrapolate this information to the rest)

Lastly I'd like to ask you to stop posting videos without commentary, because doing so won't make you sound any more sophisticated. Most people won't take the time to listen to videos who are more than half an hour long. Please explain the arguments yourself. And if you don't understand them completely, at least post quotes. This would improve the conversations tremendously.

[Viceroy63]

Point well taken.

This is a 30 minute Video that goes into several of the hypothesis used in the theory of evolution. A theory that explains away God in creation. And how that theory is flawed and DNA could not have evolved from a simpler form to a more complex form of life.

The irreducibility of the cell means simply that the cell works together with all the parts as one. Like a car engine. If you remove any part of the engine then the engine wont work. Or wont work as it should. Causing the engine to explode because it has missing parts, is not making it work.

The theory of evolution states that complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. The Video explains how this could not happen because any part or an organism (according to evolution), that is not functional gets weeded right out. So to say that our modern cell evolved from simpler one is a contradiction in terms because it would not be allow to evolve by the process of natural selection.

Thus all the parts had to come about at the same time thus all the parts had to be design, thus God is.

There is more discussed in the video then what I just wrote down but that is the Gist of it all. I would like to point out that people who argue for evolution and natural selection being the cause of life on earth truly do not consider all of the facts and that is why I post these Videos. To make it easier for any truly open mind to consider the facts of this argument.

Also in the Video is mentioned the names of scientist who make presentation all around the world on this topic.

[AndyDufresne]

The theory of evolution states that complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. The Video explains how this could not happen because any part or an organism (according to evolution), that is not functional gets weeded right out. So to say that our modern cell evolved from simpler one is a contradiction in terms because it would not be allow to evolve by the process of natural selection

I don't think this is an entirely accurate description of the mechanics of evolution, but I'll leave the discussion to those who want to discuss, since I'll be going back to Star Trek gifs.


--Andy