Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

Firstly, to address the post before this - you coming in and copy pasting the entirity of genesis up to a certain point and then declaring that Moses said so makes it true is so laughable I won't even bother to respond it to except to laugh. Ha ha ha ha ha. That was me laughing. Fun wasn't it? Don't want to deal with the actual inconsistencies in the two genesis accounts which even religious scholars agree came from 2 different sources? Just fine by me, but don't then claim that there are no inconsistencies in your magic book of fairy tales...

Secondly, I was dead serious. If you think what you wrote about me was accurate I can now see perfectly why you would think a bunch of stone age gossip about an imaginary, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully would be reason enough to base your delusions of grandeur about your privleged insight into the things that happened before time itself and outside of our universe.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. If I believe that there is no Santa Claus, does that make me a highly religious aclausist? Or does that make me someone who gave up childish fairy tales about a guy with a bushy white beard who lives somewhere totally inaccessible, who knows our every good and bad deed, who will reward or punish us for these good or bad deeds, who has an army of magical helpers and has songs sung about him .... hang on wait I forget which ridiculous bullshit I'm talking about here....

By the way, you want to deal with the bit of the quote you snipped out, or are you just up to your usual cowardly tricks of taking bits of what people say out of their proper context and using them to try and fail to make infantile assertions?

[universalchiro]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

I agree that atheism for some people can be more of a beliefsystem rather than rational thinking, as not every atheist likes to research facts before thinking.
But atheism is very different from the major religions. Atheism is not standardized. It does not require people to believe specific theories. Even though a lot of atheists are also evolutionists, it is not a requirement.
Atheism is also not institutionalized nor organized. Atheists usually don't come together somewhere to share their thoughts with like-minded people(internet being the exception though). This lack of organization makes it more individualist than the major religions, who have all the characteristics of being collectivist.

It is for this reason that I don't think atheism can be characterized as a religion.

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

• [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions
• [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion

According to the oxford dictionary, atheism is not a religion according to the most widely accepted definition of the word. It can only be compared to the description in the last line.

First, let me teach you how to read a definition. This is not to demean, but to honestly help. For your copy and paste has all the correct words, but your view of those words needs help.

a Definition of religion: a particular system of faith and worship: An example of such a belief is "the world’s great religions" but not limiting the only example.
Another definition of religion: a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: An example of such a pursuit is "consumerism is the new religion", but not limiting the only example.

Therefore, according to the Oxford dictionary, Not only is atheism a religion, but crispybits is an example of a faithful pupil with a pursuit and interest followed with great devotion. This truly is obvious, but understanding how to properly read definitions is the key. And I don't say that with demeaning or anything derogatory. I'm really approaching this to help. Cheers.

[waauw]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

I agree that atheism for some people can be more of a beliefsystem rather than rational thinking, as not every atheist likes to research facts before thinking.
But atheism is very different from the major religions. Atheism is not standardized. It does not require people to believe specific theories. Even though a lot of atheists are also evolutionists, it is not a requirement.
Atheism is also not institutionalized nor organized. Atheists usually don't come together somewhere to share their thoughts with like-minded people(internet being the exception though). This lack of organization makes it more individualist than the major religions, who have all the characteristics of being collectivist.

It is for this reason that I don't think atheism can be characterized as a religion.

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

• [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions
• [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion

According to the oxford dictionary, atheism is not a religion according to the most widely accepted definition of the word. It can only be compared to the description in the last line.

First, let me teach you how to read a definition. This is not to demean, but to honestly help. For your copy and paste has all the correct words, but your view of those words needs help.

a Definition of religion: a particular system of faith and worship: An example of such a belief is "the world’s great religions" but not limiting the only example.
Another definition of religion: a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: An example of such a pursuit is "consumerism is the new religion", but not limiting the only example.

Therefore, according to the Oxford dictionary, Not only is atheism a religion, but crispybits is an example of a faithful pupil with a pursuit and interest followed with great devotion. This truly is obvious, but understanding how to properly read definitions is the key. And I don't say that with demeaning or anything derogatory. I'm really approaching this to help. Cheers.

Well I agreed that according to the last line atheism would be classified as a religion, but atheism is not about worshipment. So in the sense of the second line, it cannot be defined as religion.

A thing I should also point out is that christianism does comply to the meaning of the word in all 3 ways. So again this does show that there is some fundamental difference between atheism and the classical religions.(even though it could probably be used for harm as much as the major religions)

[universalchiro]

You yourself came here with evidences supporting the fact that the current dating systems might be wrong, but what you didn't do was come with proof of a revised correct dating system.

Proof of a correct dating system? Something observable, something repeatable in a lab. No not directly. The best way we have is to prove that the status quo: Evolution, That the Big Bang occurred 14.6 billions years ago and earth began 4.6 billion years ago and life spontaneously evolved is false. Then authenticate that the Bible has no errors, is historically true, is archeologically true, is scientifically true and the Bible spoke of many things before science new about them (hydrological cycle and the earth is in perfect Isostasy, the sun drags the solar system, the earth is a sphere, etc) and that writers of the Bible understood events before they would occur and wrote about them. They foretold of men whom didn't exist would reign in a kingdom that didn't exist 100's of years prior too. there are 2000+ prophecies in the Bible are already fulfilled. http://www.reasons.org/articles/article ... -the-bible

All this to lend credence to the age of life on earth may be exactly as the Bible tells us. But this is really a side topic to get people to say, "maybe the Bible is from God" and then accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. That He died on the cross and paid for all our transgressions, so that we may have a blessed life now and eternal life.

The current dating systems are wrong. This has already been provided. You post as though there are no prior pages of strong scientific evidence. Maybe you missed it on prior pages. It happens.

The layers of the earth prove how old dinosaurs are. NO. The layers prove that a flood occurred and the dirt (filled with massive amounts of sediment) in the water settled according to density. This is why tree and fish are fossilized in the vertical position, transcending 20 layers of soil. If the layers took millions of years for each layer to form, then no tree, no fish would wait around for the 20 layers to form around them. Also, the grand canyon would have massive mixing of the layers, instead the layers are uniformly laid.

Carbon14 dating proves the earth is super old. NO. The sun's UV rays converts some N in the atmosphere to C14, which makes dead subjects appear older than they are. Also C14 is one out of 1 trillion carbon atoms, so any missed C14, will make the subject appear vastly older than it is. When testing the same tree, reading come back that the tree is 500 years old to 30,000 years old. Wildly inaccurate. [http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm]

Radioactive Isotopes prove the earth is 4.6 Billion years old. NO. The formula uses a "Constant Rate of Decay" in it's algorithm. And that's the problem. For the rate of decay observed today, is not the rate of decay constantly in past millenniums. With each trauma on earth (volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, flood, etc), the aging process is accelerated. Mt. St. Helen in 1980 has produced petrified wood. A process that is suppose to take 500,000 years. We can convert wood to coal in 8 months, a process suppose to take 20 million years. Chicken farmers convert byproducts to petroleum oil in 30 minutes, suppose to take 50 million years. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q45cMXu6VVo ]

Science has proven that the earth was molten and cooled over billions of years. NO. Dr. Robert Gentry proves this to be false. http://www.halos.com/index.htm

Evolution is proven by all the changes we see today in all life. NO. Changes in life do to changes in environment are readily seen, but after all the tiny and settle changes, they are still the same kind. There are no transitional life today, yesterdays , nor tomorrow.

Evolution is proven by all the fossil records. NO. there are no transitional fossils. When evolutionist purport they discovered a missing link: ie Lucy, Java Man. It is later proven to be falsified evidence. Very sad.

Evolution is proven that we evolved by the vestigial organs. NO. The coccyx is necessary for one thing, sphincter control. I will pay for any evolutionist to have this "vestigial" tail removed and watch how much poop comes out of them. The Pineal gland is for nocturnal functions such as sleep. The appendix holds bacteria to safe guard and reconstitute the intestine with necessary bacteria should they be flushed out. The nipples on a man are for sexual stimulation and economy of production with male and females, for in the first weeks, the fetus has no anatomical or hormonal sex. Evolution is proven by the vestigial feet of the snake. NO. The Bible clearly states what happened to the snake: Genesis 3:14 "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."... And guess what, the snake still uses those claws for mating.

According to the scientific method, when one aspect of a hypothesis is invalid, the theory needs to be reworked or tossed all together. If one would view the evidence against evolution with an objective mind, they will see there is reasonable doubt. And that just maybe the truth that God gave us a set of laws and rules that know one could follow, was to demonstrate God's overpowering love for us. For God knew we would all fail and that is why God predetermined to send His Son before the beginning of creation. First He wants us to realize that we can't abide by His rules, then God's loving act is so large that He covers all our transgressions with the shed blood of His Son.

So the impossible laws, commands, precepts and rules is to reveal how righteous He is and how far from Him we are. Then sacrificing His Son for us, reveals how loving He is to pay in full for all those undeserving that just believe with faith.

[universalchiro]

So you are directly opposed to the opinion of Viceroy

This is a fair question to ask. One of the reasons that people don't believe in the Bible are there are so many dang denominations that it's too exhausting to put the time in to figure out which one is correct, which one is more accurate, etc. It's like, "Why don't ya'll get organized, get your act together and then maybe, maybe, I'll consider hearing what you have to say".

I think this is a valid response considering a cursory look at all the different denominations. Some of the differences between Protestant churches is merely by geographical location. Where one church starts up in a region and calls themselves such and such by location. So here is a simple list of differences:
Some believe one can lose their salvation and other don't
drink wine or can't
dance or can't
musical instruments or only Acapella
spiritual gifts or no spiritual gifts
pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation
Pre-millennium , Amillennium, Post-millennium
Rapture or no rapture
who the Antichrist may be
Church discipline
etc

But underlining them all is that all of them believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross, buried for 3 days and rose from the grave (Gospel: Good News). This is the core and the unifying point. The brief list above are all secondary points that are not salvational.

So take Viceroy and myself: He believes in the Gap Theory, he has provided evidence to me in PM. We have hotly debated this topic. For I believe in a young earth model, ie literal Genesis creation account. Though we have spent days debating back and forth, there is complete unity between Viceroy and myself. Why? I lovingly respect his opinion. Our differences are non-salvational. We are both in accord that Jesus is the Way, The Truth and the Life. and no one comes to the Father but through Christ John 14:6

[Woodruff]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Atheism itself is absolutely not a religion...there's no question of this. That being said, I do know some few atheists who treat their atheism as a religion, so I would consider it to be one in their case.

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

Not surprisingly, I don't believe you have much of an understanding of what atheism is.

[Woodruff]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

I agree that atheism for some people can be more of a beliefsystem rather than rational thinking, as not every atheist likes to research facts before thinking.
But atheism is very different from the major religions. Atheism is not standardized. It does not require people to believe specific theories. Even though a lot of atheists are also evolutionists, it is not a requirement.
Atheism is also not institutionalized nor organized. Atheists usually don't come together somewhere to share their thoughts with like-minded people(internet being the exception though). This lack of organization makes it more individualist than the major religions, who have all the characteristics of being collectivist.

It is for this reason that I don't think atheism can be characterized as a religion.

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

• [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions
• [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion

According to the oxford dictionary, atheism is not a religion according to the most widely accepted definition of the word. It can only be compared to the description in the last line.

First, let me teach you how to read a definition. This is not to demean, but to honestly help. For your copy and paste has all the correct words, but your view of those words needs help.

a Definition of religion: a particular system of faith and worship: An example of such a belief is "the world’s great religions" but not limiting the only example.
Another definition of religion: a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: An example of such a pursuit is "consumerism is the new religion", but not limiting the only example.

Therefore, according to the Oxford dictionary, Not only is atheism a religion, but crispybits is an example of a faithful pupil with a pursuit and interest followed with great devotion. This truly is obvious, but understanding how to properly read definitions is the key. And I don't say that with demeaning or anything derogatory. I'm really approaching this to help. Cheers.

Are you intentionally parading your ignorance, or is it just a by-product of your arrogance?

[Woodruff]

You yourself came here with evidences supporting the fact that the current dating systems might be wrong, but what you didn't do was come with proof of a revised correct dating system.

Proof of a correct dating system? Something observable, something repeatable in a lab. No not directly. The best way we have is to prove that the status quo: Evolution, That the Big Bang occurred 14.6 billions years ago and earth began 4.6 billion years ago and life spontaneously evolved is false.

Good luck with that.

Then authenticate that the Bible has no errors, is historically true, is archeologically true, is scientifically true

Anyone taking the Bible as completely literal has no common sense.

and that writers of the Bible understood events before they would occur and wrote about them. They foretold of men whom didn't exist would reign in a kingdom that didn't exist 100's of years prior too. there are 2000+ prophecies in the Bible are already fulfilled. http://www.reasons.org/articles/article ... -the-bible

Nostradamus is just as good at this (and not coincidentally just as vague about it), so why aren't you worshipping him?

The current dating systems are wrong. This has already been provided.

Not with any accuracy or integrity, it hasn't, no.

The layers of the earth prove how old dinosaurs are. NO. The layers prove that a flood occurred and the dirt (filled with massive amounts of sediment) in the water settled according to density. This is why tree and fish are fossilized in the vertical position, transcending 20 layers of soil. If the layers took millions of years for each layer to form, then no tree, no fish would wait around for the 20 layers to form around them. Also, the grand canyon would have massive mixing of the layers, instead the layers are uniformly laid.

Holy crap. Do you have any real, actual, scientific information? Or did someone just completely make it up and you swallowed it wholesale?

[http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm]

Oh, now I see. You don't actually have scientific information. Get back to us when you're not just repeating what some religious group tells you without actually understanding it for yourself. Thanks.

[universalchiro]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

I agree that atheism for some people can be more of a beliefsystem rather than rational thinking, as not every atheist likes to research facts before thinking.
But atheism is very different from the major religions. Atheism is not standardized. It does not require people to believe specific theories. Even though a lot of atheists are also evolutionists, it is not a requirement.
Atheism is also not institutionalized nor organized. Atheists usually don't come together somewhere to share their thoughts with like-minded people(internet being the exception though). This lack of organization makes it more individualist than the major religions, who have all the characteristics of being collectivist.

It is for this reason that I don't think atheism can be characterized as a religion.

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

• [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions
• [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion

According to the oxford dictionary, atheism is not a religion according to the most widely accepted definition of the word. It can only be compared to the description in the last line.

First, let me teach you how to read a definition. This is not to demean, but to honestly help. For your copy and paste has all the correct words, but your view of those words needs help.

a Definition of religion: a particular system of faith and worship: An example of such a belief is "the world’s great religions" but not limiting the only example.
Another definition of religion: a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: An example of such a pursuit is "consumerism is the new religion", but not limiting the only example.

Therefore, according to the Oxford dictionary, Not only is atheism a religion, but crispybits is an example of a faithful pupil with a pursuit and interest followed with great devotion. This truly is obvious, but understanding how to properly read definitions is the key. And I don't say that with demeaning or anything derogatory. I'm really approaching this to help. Cheers.

Waauw, I agree Atheism doesn't have the recognized body that a church would have, so they appear different, but one doesn't have to meet every definition of a word to have the word apply to them. One aspect of religion applies on a personal level, when a person believes an idea or has faith in something. eg crispybits. Then another aspect is when a collective of people in an organized system have faith & believe in something. So its not that a church is more a religion than atheism, if one meets a qualification & crispybits does, then its a religion. Though I grant you that they don't look identical. They are both faith based: crispybits with his faith there is no god and. Baptist's faith that there is God.

Worship: does crispybits worship? Yes. There are many forms of worship, everyone is familiar with pray, singing to, bowing down to... and although crispybits doesn't do those types of worship, he worships in a different way but still under the definition of worship. He gives respect to evolution, he gives honor to evolution life, he acknowledges his forefathers are distant amoebas that spontaneously came to life, he gives reverence/respect to a power that has brought all life namely chance & time. He takes away all worship away from God for creating life & gives it to evolution. Make no mistake, crispybits and his faithful belief to atheism and worshipping evolution is a religion. His hatred of God & religion has made him apart of the very thing he hates.

For the record, I'm more on the side of crispybits than he realizes; I too hate religion per say. Those that seem the most self righteous the least sinful, & pile on burdens to the people are scary to me. Even when Jesus came he rebuked the religious system: Pharisees, saducees & theological lawyers. Only when Christians humble themselves & realize they are equally guilty as all others, & yes you too crispybits, but that God gave us something we don't deserve. And that's salvation which is freedom from that which we do deserve. Hell.

So cool your jets crispybits, I'll let you in on a secret: I'm a rank sinner & I don't have a pious perch I'm on. I've been broken many times by God for boasting in myself. I slightly recognize more today than yesterday s how wretched of a man I was. I was blind but now I see, I was lost but now I'm found. Because of the blessed work that Jesus did on that cross.

[Viceroy63]

There is one basic difference between believing in a Creator God and not believing in a Creator God. And that difference is Freedom.

When you consider that the whole world is a slave and not just to sin but to the System of living, then you come to grips with the fact that believing in a Creator God does allow one a certain freedom in the choice that we make.

Like the alcoholic who is now free to not take that next drink because he realizes what he is, an alcoholic. So the Sinner, upon realizing what he is, is suddenly free to choose to pray to God and ask for help which he does receive just like the alcoholic who prays to his "Higher Power" also receiving the power and choice and help to quit/stop drinking. Is he still an alcoholic? As surely as the believer in God is still very much a sinner, yes. But now he has the freedom and is able to make a choice that he could not have done before.

For as long as the person is blinded by his Godless faith, he is still a slave of his religion, born into bondage, into a prison that he can not taste, touch or feel. The believer of evolution is in bondage to serve the god of evolution despite the obviousness of the truth. That it is a lie. Just like paying your taxes or going to work because that's the way things are done and have always been done, yet it is all still just a lie and those caught into that belief system must serve it because they have no power from on high. No choice and no Freedom in the matter.

I would also add that every scientist that has ever believed in evolution and has ceased to believe in that theory has done so because the available data points towards a Creator God. And while they may not know who or what that God is as yet, they are not in any doubt that we are a creation designed and fashioned by a Creator God. Until God comes into the picture, there is no true freedom of choice for the Darwinist, evolutionary god believer. He will die, believing the lie.

[Woodruff]

There is one basic difference between believing in a Creator God and not believing in a Creator God. And that difference is Freedom.

I can definitely agree with that.

When you consider that the whole world is a slave and not just to sin but to the System of living, then you come to grips with the fact that believing in a Creator God does allow one a certain freedom in the choice that they make.

That's pretty much the opposite of reality.

Like the alcoholic who is now free to not take that next drink because he realizes what he is, an alcoholic.

Uh...that's an OUTSTANDING analogy. But not for the reason you think it is.

So the Sinner, upon realizing what he is, is suddenly free to pray to God and ask for help which he does receive

Why does God give a shit who wins the big game?

For as long as the person is blinded by his Godless faith, he is still a slave of his religion, born into bondage, into a prison that he can not taste, touch or feel. The believer of evolution is in bondage to serve the god of evolution despite the obviousness of the truth. That it is a lie. Just like paying your taxes or going to work because that's the way things are done and have always been done, yet it is all still just a lie and those caught into that belief system must serve it because they have no power from on high. No choice and no Freedom in the matter.

Wow. It's almost as if you don't even understand what freedom is. This is like some weird "up is down" logic.

[crispybits]

Worship: does crispybits worship? Yes. There are many forms of worship, everyone is familiar with pray, singing to, bowing down to... and although crispybits doesn't do those types of worship, he worships in a different way but still under the definition of worship. He gives respect to evolution, he gives honor to evolution life, he acknowledges his forefathers are distant amoebas that spontaneously came to life, he gives reverence/respect to a power that has brought all life namely chance & time. He takes away all worship away from God for creating life & gives it to evolution. Make no mistake, crispybits and his faithful belief to atheism and worshipping evolution is a religion. His hatred of God & religion has made him apart of the very thing he hates.

For the record, I'm more on the side of crispybits than he realizes; I too hate religion per say. Those that seem the most self righteous the least sinful, & pile on burdens to the people are scary to me. Even when Jesus came he rebuked the religious system: Pharisees, saducees & theological lawyers. Only when Christians humble themselves & realize they are equally guilty as all others, & yes you too crispybits, but that God gave us something we don't deserve. And that's salvation which is freedom from that which we do deserve. Hell.

So cool your jets crispybits, I'll let you in on a secret: I'm a rank sinner & I don't have a pious perch I'm on. I've been broken many times by God for boasting in myself. I slightly recognize more today than yesterday s how wretched of a man I was. I was blind but now I see, I was lost but now I'm found. Because of the blessed work that Jesus did on that cross.

And this shows your utter ignorance of what I think or believe. I don't show reverence to or respect any ideas, with the exception of the ideas that we should all respect and show kindness to people and that we should not base beliefs around things that cannot be shown to be very likely the truth. If evolution is shown to be incorrect tomorrow then it gets dropped from my worldview and replaced with whatever is shown to be correct in it's place (yes, even if that something is a creator God of the type you accept without question). Ideas are not worthy of respect, reverence or worship, and they certainly aren't to be accepted on blind faith just because someone said so and they happen to agree with what my parents told me about Santa Clau... sorry... God when I was a kid.

Lets just assume that evolution was proven incorrect tomorrow (and your creationist joke club's attempts are not doing that job by the way, every argument is either flawed, circular or just plain ridiculous). I'll tell you exactly what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't grab a copy of "Origin of the Species" and try and quote mine it to say that whatever has been proved correct was known by Darwin all along if you just interpret this sentence out of it's context in a different way, or that paragraph to mean something that very vaguely matches the new theory if you squint and turn your brain sideways. That Darwin is still the great genius who figured it all out, etc etc. I don't even say Darwin figured it all out now, there have been many scientists who have come along and modified his theories to better fit the evidence already, and there are still areas where there is debate about the exact mechanisms by which evolution works that scientists are still devising new ways to try and test and find evidence for.

Also, what I see in this thread from you and Viceroy is not you humbling yourselves. You are claiming knowledge of an absolute truth that has evaded poor minds like mine. You are claiming a personal relationship with an entity so powerful he could create the universe and everything in it. You are claiming that you KNOW the answers to certain questions, and implying that there is nothing that could ever be said or done that would change your mind. Everything that comes along that disagrees with you is to be considered a "test of faith", a circumstance set up by God to personally see if you are worthy of his eternal grace. Contrast that with someone who says that these ultimate answers may be totally unknowable, who has a set of various "best guesses" at varying levels of probability for the spiritual side of the universe but who doesn't hold any of them sacred, and who has actually investigated and is still investigating different possibilities in science, history and religion looking for answers to questions about how the world works.

My current best guess conclusion (that is still open to new evidence and being proved wrong) from that ongoing investigation is that the anthropomorphic God is a socio-political construct put together maybe 5-50,000 years ago by arrogant and fraudulent theocrats from an early society based in or around the Bosphorus Basin (now flooded and forming the edges of the Black Sea, but once fertile farmland) in order to gain power over the uneducated and highly superstitious population by means of fear and bribery and usurp the more shamanic religious structures that had been discredited by repeated failure to show results over centuries. It worked so well that over time these bastards refined and perfected the idea, which became (among other things) Judaism over time, which then became the Old Testament of Christianity, all the while being edited and recanonised to appeal to the ignorant masses a little better each time. The New Testament is simply their last effort at rewriting the same old tired story to be nore relevant to modern society and was last signifcantly recodified at the Synod of Hippo, though every Pope does a little bit of editing (under the guise of clarification). I think it's highly likely that the leaders are now deluded just like the followers into thinking they are working for the truth and doing good, but in reality I strongly believe that they are doing harm overall and that their fairy tales should be professed for what they are - bollocks.

[universalchiro]

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

Any high school student can disprove evolution. Evilution is based on lots of time. With lost of time, the how foundation crumbles.

Science 101: take a piece of wood, seal it in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay & water. Bake at 150 °C for 8 months. Presto that would comes out as 100% coal. Take that 100% coal to the top scientists and their top equipment will calculate the age of the 8 month old coal to be 20 million years old.

Since mankind can accelerate the aging process can nature? Yes. Mt. ST. Helen erupted 1980, has already produced petrified wood. A process claim to take 500,000 years.

Even farmers convert chicken byproduct into 100% petroleum oil in only 30 minutes. A process believed by evolution to take 50 million years.

Evolution is so faith based its silly rhetoric. And ya'll have no answer for the above. Because you are mentally catatonic.

You don't recognize checkmate when its written before your blind faith eyes. You see without seeing. You base without hearing.

[crispybits]

round and round the circle we go....

[notyou2]

round and round the circle we go....

I want off the merry go round, it's making me sick.

[jonesthecurl]

So you are directly opposed to the opinion of Viceroy

This is a fair question to ask. One of the reasons that people don't believe in the Bible are there are so many dang denominations that it's too exhausting to put the time in to figure out which one is correct, which one is more accurate, etc. It's like, "Why don't ya'll get organized, get your act together and then maybe, maybe, I'll consider hearing what you have to say".

I think this is a valid response considering a cursory look at all the different denominations. Some of the differences between Protestant churches is merely by geographical location. Where one church starts up in a region and calls themselves such and such by location. So here is a simple list of differences:
Some believe one can lose their salvation and other don't
drink wine or can't
dance or can't
musical instruments or only Acapella
spiritual gifts or no spiritual gifts
pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation
Pre-millennium , Amillennium, Post-millennium
Rapture or no rapture
who the Antichrist may be
Church discipline
etc

But underlining them all is that all of them believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross, buried for 3 days and rose from the grave (Gospel: Good News). This is the core and the unifying point. The brief list above are all secondary points that are not salvational.

So take Viceroy and myself: He believes in the Gap Theory, he has provided evidence to me in PM. We have hotly debated this topic. For I believe in a young earth model, ie literal Genesis creation account. Though we have spent days debating back and forth, there is complete unity between Viceroy and myself. Why? I lovingly respect his opinion. Our differences are non-salvational. We are both in accord that Jesus is the Way, The Truth and the Life. and no one comes to the Father but through Christ John 14:6

Thank you for that answer. No sarcasm or insult, that was a useful contribution.I'm glad to hear that the two of you are debating your differering interpretations. Others have also informed us that the death and resurrection are THE fundamental, and while I don't share your belief, it is good to know that you feel the non-young earthers/creationists are within the fold of the faithful. That was a good and honest answer.

But my point remains: you two are both trying to convince us of the absolute truth of your version of cosmology, both pointing at the same "evidence", and both claiming that this obvious truth is sitting right in front of our eyes. You can't both be right, even assuming that either of you are less than totally misguided. If yu can't convince the other faithful of the truth of your positions, how far are you going to get with people who don't begin by assuming that the Bible is necessarily "true"?

[tzor]

Science 101: take a piece of wood, seal it in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay & water. Bake at 150 °C for 8 months. Presto that would comes out as 100% coal. Take that 100% coal to the top scientists and their top equipment will calculate the age of the 8 month old coal to be 20 million years old.

No, you get charcoal. Charcoal is not exactly coal and these differences are a direct result of the differences in the way they are created. The differences between charcoal and coal

Second of all, where are you getting these natural vacuum environments heated to temperatures above the boiling point of water on the earth?

[Viceroy63]

If evolution is shown to be incorrect tomorrow then it gets dropped from my worldview and replaced with whatever is shown to be correct in it's place (yes, even if that something is a creator God of the type you accept without question).

Crispy; Evolution has never been proven in the first place. Darwin himself noted the many faults that lie with his own theory. The chief of which is that there are no intermediary species in the fossil record.

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
(The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)

Darwin arrived at the accurate conclusion that the Geologic records should contain even more intermediary species like Dinosaurs with half developed wings instead of little tiny arms, than the species themselves. If evolution is a gradual process taking millions even perhaps billions of years to happen then there should be tons of intermediary species outweighing the species themselves. But there just is not.

It has been proposed that the variations of the many types of Dogs are an example of intermediary species but this is clearly not the case because this does not show from which species the dog evolved from. Thus the missing link is still missing. It has also been proposed that Micro-evolution better known as mutations of germs and viruses is also evidence of evolution because if changes occur on a smaller scale then they must also occur on a larger scale.

But just like the dogs the germs and viruses are not turning into another species but remain the same germs and viruses just as all dogs continue to remain dogs no matter how many pro-mutations you put the dog through. It is still a dog an not anything else. Thus evolution has never been proven to even occur in the first place.

If evolution is true then there should be massive amounts of undeniable evidence in support of the theory. So much so that it would not even be considered a theory but a "Fact!" But evolution will never be a fact and those who embrace the theory do so without any evidence what so ever.

But on the other hand, Archeology alone support many of the Biblical claims. All one needs to do is to open their eyes and just look into it. Take for example the below Video. You can choose not to even watch it but that is you then choosing not to accept the truth despite the evidence on hand.

[Woodruff]

Science 101: take a piece of wood, seal it in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay & water. Bake at 150 °C for 8 months. Presto that would comes out as 100% coal.

I don't believe you will be advancing to Science 201 anytime soon.

Evolution is so faith based its silly rhetoric. And ya'll have no answer for the above. Because you are mentally catatonic.

Says the individual whose life revolves around being completely faith-based. Huh.

You don't recognize checkmate when its written before your blind faith eyes. You see without seeing. You base without hearing.

Self-reflection...it could do you a world of good.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, the flaw with all your pictures is I am pretty sure none of those people worship the right god.


--Andy

I prefer the left god. My special book says that he's totes awesome and that all other gods--especially right ones--are false.

Is that the one offering you to sit next to a nice warm fire or the one that makes live up high where it's cold?

You wouldn't understand because you have hatred in your brain.

1. Assume my God exists and is totes awesome cuz he wrote the book and that's true because it is.
2. Assume you're wrong.
3. Therefore I'm right.

/summary of cairo's spiel

[BigBallinStalin]

You of all religions should least judge, for an atheist has arbitrary standards. Values based on nothing. For to you there is no God.

Firstly, atheism is not a rleigion

Atheism is not a religion? You must be joking?

Religion: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion] Look at the definition of religion.
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I, crispybits, do solemnly swear that I believe there is no god.
I, crispybits, will faithfully post in Conquer Club that I am a professing Atheist.
I, crispybits, will uphold dutifully the creeds set out by other atheist: I will say there is no god, I will poke fun at those who do believe in a god, I will cause as many to doubt in God and I will cause as many as possible to convert to my beliefs, with extreme ardor, and I will faithfully be wholly dedicated to this cause. Amen.

I agree that atheism for some people can be more of a beliefsystem rather than rational thinking, as not every atheist likes to research facts before thinking.
But atheism is very different from the major religions. Atheism is not standardized. It does not require people to believe specific theories. Even though a lot of atheists are also evolutionists, it is not a requirement.
Atheism is also not institutionalized nor organized. Atheists usually don't come together somewhere to share their thoughts with like-minded people(internet being the exception though). This lack of organization makes it more individualist than the major religions, who have all the characteristics of being collectivist.

It is for this reason that I don't think atheism can be characterized as a religion.

Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

• [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions
• [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion?q=religion

According to the oxford dictionary, atheism is not a religion according to the most widely accepted definition of the word. It can only be compared to the description in the last line.

First, let me teach you how to read a definition. This is not to demean, but to honestly help. For your copy and paste has all the correct words, but your view of those words needs help.

a Definition of religion: a particular system of faith and worship: An example of such a belief is "the world’s great religions" but not limiting the only example.
Another definition of religion: a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: An example of such a pursuit is "consumerism is the new religion", but not limiting the only example.

Therefore, according to the Oxford dictionary, Not only is atheism a religion, but crispybits is an example of a faithful pupil with a pursuit and interest followed with great devotion. This truly is obvious, but understanding how to properly read definitions is the key. And I don't say that with demeaning or anything derogatory. I'm really approaching this to help. Cheers.

Good job taking that metaphor and running with it. No wonder you lead yourself to such ridiculous conclusions.

[universalchiro]

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

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.

The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

The above quote in NOT carbon dating. C14 has long since been known to be too inaccurate to be discussed seriously. This discussion above is an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes topic and focuses on the weak point of the formula, "Constant Rate of Decay". All those who are debating against this topic but calling it carbon dating, clearly doesn't recognize checkmate when you see it. You are debating something you know nothing about. Refuting something that you are clueless about and calling it by a different dating system all together, revealing your ignorance.

You essentially gave the intellectual equivalent of "not uh"... This reveals you are defending a belief that you don't fully know and more importantly, you don't want to know the truth. You are more comfortable believing what you believe, even if it is proven to be false. That is illogical fanatical religion.

You've been exposed.

How did 5 evolutionist respond to this post?
Not uh...
Nice strawman...
You're an idiot...

When Evolutionist can't refute logic, they verbally attack personally the one who exposed them,
When Evolutionist can't refute the science against their belief system, they post pictures of Jack Nickolson to mock the one who mentally checkmated them.
When Evolutionist don't understand the science to even know that they have been revealed to have faith in what they don't know, just because they hate God, they reply, "Nice Straw man"...
When Evolutionist reply, often they will change the words of the one who exposed their flawed belief system and say "I agree with this post"
When Evolutionist don't fully know what they belief, they just know they hate God and Christians, they reply with "you are so arrogant and you only use circular reasoning"


Scientific method: For a hypothesis to continue with validity, it must pass testing and when the hypothesis is found
to not pass all the test, (eg the test above), then the hypothesis should be modified, re-purposed or scuttled. Evolutionist are unwilling to even objectively look at the facts against their religion. They just blindly attack personally the one who exposed that they have a belief system.

[Viceroy63]

UC; I think that perhaps you give these Darwinist too much credit when you try to explain it to them. After all, if they had an open and intelligent mind with which to reason with in the first place, they would examine the evidence themselves instead of just plain outright rejecting the facts without even looking at the evidence provided.

All the available data points to the fact that God exist and that we are His creation. Created by an intelligence that is revealed to us in the Bible as God! That the Universe had a beginning and thus a beginner and that man is a product of Intelligent Design. Even science is coming back around to that conclusion.

I maintain that this thread is simply for the purpose of bashing believers and not for the intelligent discussion of the topic at hand.

[crispybits]

snip snip snip

How did 5 evolutionist respond to this post?
Not uh...
Nice strawman...
You're an idiot...

When Evolutionist can't refute logic, they verbally attack personally the one who exposed them,
When Evolutionist can't refute the science against their belief system, they post pictures of Jack Nickolson to mock the one who mentally checkmated them.
When Evolutionist don't understand the science to even know that they have been revealed to have faith in what they don't know, just because they hate God, they reply, "Nice Straw man"...
When Evolutionist reply, often they will change the words of the one who exposed their flawed belief system and say "I agree with this post"
When Evolutionist don't fully know what they belief, they just know they hate God and Christians, they reply with "you are so arrogant and you only use circular reasoning"


Scientific method: For a hypothesis to continue with validity, it must pass testing and when the hypothesis is found
to not pass all the test, (eg the test above), then the hypothesis should be modified, re-purposed or scuttled. Evolutionist are unwilling to even objectively look at the facts against their religion. They just blindly attack personally the one who exposed that they have a belief system.

The direct link to the above snipped post is:

viewtopic.php?p=4183813#p4183813

It's way back on page 165 so takes a while to find to factcheck.

These are the actual responses to that particular post:

well then my appologies for my mistake. I'm not a physicist, nor am I educated in the exact sciences. My specialty is business and economics. However you still haven't proven your point of view. As I said before evolution is based on a lot of different kinds of proof. Whatever the dating system, doesn't matter.Whether or not these dating systems are correct doesn't matter either. As they are used to to determine the speed of evolution. Evolution can be seen in genetic similarities, artificial selection, computersimulations, etc.

Also you keep on failing to prove your Bible and all of it's statements, so who's the fanatical believer? You keep ignoring half the things that are mentioned in this topic. You keep turning a blind eye towards massive parts of the argumentation. Where is your admission that evolution is not a circular reasoning(and again this has nothing to do with the validity of the exo-circle arguments)? Where's your admission that not all pieces of land get covered by the same amount of dirt every year? etc.

Your conclusion that I'm an illogical fanatical religious person is inconclusive too. Is it because someone makes a mistake in 1 aspect, that he is wrong on every single thing that he mentions? Because I am pretty sure every single person on the planet has made a mistake somewhere along his lifetime, but that doesn't mean every single person on the planet has made nothing but mistakes. Of course I'm exagerating here, but nonetheless I think it's relevant.

That was the ONLY response to that post, unless you're just pulling out of context quotes at random from any pages before or after your post you feel like (which given creationist quote mining tactics probably wouldn't be a stretch to believe). Waauw was probably the only one to respond because you're making an argument that has been debunked time and time and time again in this thread already. But to make it brief, we can look at the radiation from supernova hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of light years away (so the supernova happened hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years ago) and we find that the predicted rates of radiometric decay based on modern Earth observation are the same as the rates of radiometric decay in those supernova that happened in the far distant past. We can calculate that the decay rates necessary to support a 6-10,000 year old Earth would have produced enough heat to melt the Earth entirely (and the Earth doesn't cool that fast, we'd still be on a liquid planet right now), and we have found that our best attempts to change the rate of decay with high/low temperature/pressure/whatever have produced only miniscule differences (less than 1%).

But of course, we're just setting up straw men and being insulting. Would you like me to find just 3 of my posts you either half quoted (quote mined) or completely ignored? Will you answer them? In fact no just answer this small part of one post (that contained other points) in return for the above:

Also, if morality is defined as "if God does it or commands it then it is good" then that is just as arbitrary and screwed up as just about anything anyone else has ever come up with. At least atheists put thought into their moral behaviour and try and find rational reasons why X or Y is good or evil. If objective morality exists separate from God, then God is simply a conduit for a greater truth that we could potentially learn without his interference. And if morality is culturally flexible, then again there is no need to have any mention of God in moral teaching. So either:

a) God defines morality - morality is arbitrary and meaningless beyond the premise "might is right"
b) God teaches morality - morality is objective and can be discovered without God
c) God is irrelevant to morality - morality is subjective and God gets in the way of proper moral judgements

Which is it?

[Woodruff]

How did 5 evolutionist respond to this post?
Not uh...
Nice strawman...
You're an idiot...
When Evolutionist can't refute logic, they verbally attack personally the one who exposed them,
When Evolutionist can't refute the science against their belief system, they post pictures of Jack Nickolson to mock the one who mentally checkmated them.
When Evolutionist don't understand the science to even know that they have been revealed to have faith in what they don't know, just because they hate God, they reply, "Nice Straw man"...
When Evolutionist reply, often they will change the words of the one who exposed their flawed belief system and say "I agree with this post"
When Evolutionist don't fully know what they belief, they just know they hate God and Christians, they reply with "you are so arrogant and you only use circular reasoning"

When all you do is completely ignore the very reasonable and quite accurate responses to your posts, you leave us with little else to do. You are clearly not interested in actual discussion, because you have run from it full-speed throughout this long thread. Stop hiding. Discussion requires that both sides listen to the other side. To this point, neither yourself nor Viceroy has done so in the slightest, EVEN WHEN discussing these subjects with other religious individuals. If you don't like the frustrated responses you are getting, then you simply have to alter your own failed methods, for you are responsible. You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Don't be a hypocrite...God doesn't like that.