Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Frigidus]

Show me before tomorrow conclusive proof that you're ageing and you didn't become ageless and immortal through a miracle of your faith the second you started reading this post. I will only accept evidence I can observe directly by the way, the same standard you are asking for on a process that happens millions of times slower than ageing...

[rishaed]

Sure!
A. Scabs,injuries and other things can tell me that by body is changing and is not constant.
B. One word CALENDAR.
C. I come from a mortal line of people, who I can observe as they die, and as other people die.
D. Facial Hair, Loss of Baby Teeth, Growth of breasts in females, Voice cracking are all signs of aging in adolescence.
E. Grey hair, hair loss, changes in Eyesight, Height changes (growth when young, shrink when older), Hearing.
F. Change of desires and maturity.
G. Changes in Bone brittleness, bones become more brittle as people get older, also why they break easier.
Want more? There are lots of ways to observe aging even over a slow period of time. As for mortality? Well, I'd rather not test that one quite yet for myself to see if i became immortal from reading your post. I'll just have to know that the human race is mortal, and barring unforeseen circumstances I will say that I am too.

[universalchiro]

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

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything.

you can try...

Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve.

No dice. You will have to give details on what you think this actually means, because the Bible really doesn't dispute evolution.

"The Bible doesn't dispute evolution". What? Really? You can't be serious...Try this on for size:
Exodus 20:8 “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 God writing in Stone (Twice, B/C Moses broke the first set). The Bible, when it uses a number before the word "day", it always, always refers to one rotation of the earth. When there is no number before the word "day", then it could mean epics, ages, eons, unknown time.
Each creative day in the Genesis account of creation has the number immediately before the word "day".

Exodus 31:14 “‘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."
That was God talking.

So for Christians out there that believe in Evolution & say that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally, then you are calling God a liar and siding with humans as to what is truth, versus siding with God. And no human was there, so they are taking a leap of faith to say what happened prior to 6,000 years ago.

When God appeared in the flesh in Genesis 3 he appeared in human form. When God made Adam & Eve, He made them in the likeness of God, in the image of God.

So don't be fooled in thinking the Bible doesn't dispute evolution. For the Bible is clearly at odds with evolution from the words "In the beginning..."

Evolution is an attempt by man to say there is no God, that all processes are explainable via natural processes & there is no supernatural occurrence needed. This is completely disputed by the Bible. For the Bible clearly states God spoke & it was so.

Evolution is nigh observable & nigh testable with experimentation.

[tzor]

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything. Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve. So if the Christ believes in a literal Genesis account, ...

Very interesting, but stupid.

1. Adam and Eve are not in Genesis 1.
2. Jesus was talking about the story of Eve as it relates to marriage.
3. Jesus never uses the word "literal."
4. Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (which is why the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath). This would not be true of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

[universalchiro]

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

Can an evolutionist give one observable evidence that is repeatable of Darwinian evolution that is not adaptation or specialization? Why of course look at this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichi ... experiment

So you are telling me the best example of Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming ... (wait for it...)... bacteria! Wow, brilliant...
That is not evolution, that is adaptation. There is no observable evidence of Darwinian evolution. All so called observable evidence is merely adaptation. And then there is this great leap of faith that when multiplying this with Billions of years. Then spontaneous life occurs...

Axiom 101: Spontaneous life is hokem...
Axiom 102: There is no change of kind. Humans don't have gills, they don't have green skin for photosynthesis. And no kind of creature on earth cross fertilizes any eggs. Even if we soaked a human egg in an ocean of sperm of all the creatures on earth, nothing would happen. Why? It's impossible. Only one kind of creature on earth has the necessary enzyme to dissolve the human egg for fertilization. The human male. And the human egg will not allow any other spermatozoa to dissolve it's shell. Why? it's receptor specific for only one kind of enzyme. The human male. And guess what? It's like that for every kind of creature on earth.

Now ask yourself, if all life came from one amoeba then kinds would be able to cross reproduce. Not even the closest so called relative of the humans can fertilize a human egg. And not even a human male can fertilize a primates egg.

All these truths are self evident. Deep down inside ya'll know that God created you. But you like being able to sin all you want without your conscience telling you to repent.

[Frigidus]

I hope crispy bits won't mind me taking first crack at this one.

A. Scabs,injuries and other things can tell me that by body is changing and is not constant.

While you might be able to show me examples of microchanges taking place within or on the surface of the body, these change are far too small to suggest the ludicrous macrochanges put forth by those arguing that we age and eventually die. Indeed, the idea that the human body will always stop the bleeding of a scratch or scrape is one of the most obvious arguments against aging. Whenever something negatively impacts a human being, whether it be a scraped knee or a cold, the body automatically does everything it can to fix the harm that has been done. So, the question is begged, why would the same not hold true for this fabled aging process? Surely the body would work to counter such a slow acting process? Ageists just can't seem to keep their story straight.

B. One word CALENDAR.

Breaking the rules that were laid out. I might as well just say "Two words OBSERVABLE HISTORY".

C. I come from a mortal line of people, who I can observe as they die, and as other people die.

Aside from again breaking the rules, did you ever meet your great great great grandparents? Did you personally witness your own birth? How can you be sure that you weren't created this morning with the appearance (and artificial memories) of age, much in the way young Earth creationists argue the universe was created to look ancient?

D. Facial Hair, Loss of Baby Teeth, Growth of breasts in females, Voice cracking are all signs of aging in adolescence.

Microchanges, unjustified extrapolating, has never been observed in one day, circumstantial evidence.

E. Grey hair, hair loss, changes in Eyesight, Height changes (growth when young, shrink when older), Hearing.

There are plenty of colors of hair, I've never seen all of someones hair fall out instantly, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease), has never been observed in one day, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease).

F. Change of desires and maturity.

You're just saying that aging proves aging here.

G. Changes in Bone brittleness, bones become more brittle as people get older, also why they break easier.

More of the same,

Want more? There are lots of ways to observe aging even over a slow period of time. As for mortality? Well, I'd rather not test that one quite yet for myself to see if i became immortal from reading your post. I'll just have to know that the human race is mortal, and barring unforeseen circumstances I will say that I am too.

No, no, no. You can't use a slow period of time. I want the evidence now. Nobody has ever witnessed someone grow old and die within a day. Crocoduck.

Do you at least see the point of this? There is a clear parallel between this and the demand to see evolution (a process that even at its fastest occurs on a timescale of millions of years) occur within a lifetime.

[universalchiro]

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything. Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve. So if the Christ believes in a literal Genesis account, ...

Very interesting, but stupid.

1. Adam and Eve are not in Genesis 1.
2. Jesus was talking about the story of Eve as it relates to marriage.
3. Jesus never uses the word "literal."
4. Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (which is why the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath). This would not be true of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Aw, this is sad to see such lack of study. You are calling God a liar.
Strong's Concordance: #120 matches the Hebrew אָדָם ('adam), which occurs 552 times in 527 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV
Page 1 / 22 (Gen 1:26 - Gen 6:1)... Maybe you missed it, but in Genesis chapter 1 Adam appears twice. It's the same word for man.

"Jesus never uses the word Literal".. Wow, how much more literal does He have to be, He quotes it exactly. If He knew it was a figurative story, then why not paraphrase. No Jesus, The Co-Creator quotes Genesis 1:27 & Genesis 2:24 exactly. Why? Because it's a literal first hand account by God Himself. God Himself says so in Exodus 20 & 31 that He affirms it's LITERALLY 6 days of creating and rested on the 7th. By Christians rejecting the Bible, they are rejecting God. For the Bible is God's own first hand testimony of what He saw & did. How we respond to the Word of God determines our destiny. Be careful my friend. I know you profess to be a believer in God, but you reject God's word as truth. When God in the flesh, Jesus proclaimed that all scripture is from God and can not fail, not a jot or tittle. And Paul wrote that all scripture is from God. So your contention that the word of God is not accurately & truthfully the Word of God and not to be taken as it says, is going against what Christ claimed, what Peter claimed, what Paul claimed and What God the Father claims.

[Frigidus]

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

Can an evolutionist give one observable evidence that is repeatable of Darwinian evolution that is not adaptation or specialization? Why of course look at this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichi ... experiment

So you are telling me the best example of Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming ... (wait for it...)... bacteria! Wow, brilliant...
That is not evolution, that is adaptation. There is no observable evidence of Darwinian evolution. All so called observable evidence is merely adaptation. And then there is this great leap of faith that when multiplying this with Billions of years. Then spontaneous life occurs...

Axiom 101: Spontaneous life is hokem...
Axiom 102: There is no change of kind. Humans don't have gills, they don't have green skin for photosynthesis. And no kind of creature on earth cross fertilizes any eggs. Even if we soaked a human egg in an ocean of sperm of all the creatures on earth, nothing would happen. Why? It's impossible. Only one kind of creature on earth has the necessary enzyme to dissolve the human egg for fertilization. The human male. And the human egg will not allow any other spermatozoa to dissolve it's shell. Why? it's receptor specific for only one kind of enzyme. The human male. And guess what? It's like that for every kind of creature on earth.

Now ask yourself, if all life came from one amoeba then kinds would be able to cross reproduce. Not even the closest so called relative of the humans can fertilize a human egg. And not even a human male can fertilize a primates egg.

All these truths are self evident. Deep down inside ya'll know that God created you. But you like being able to sin all you want without your conscience telling you to repent.

I suppose you could say most of evolution is "repeatable", but the scale of time and variables that would have to be accounted for is such that we can't do it within a lifetime.

Also, there's that word again: 'kind'. What is the definition of that word chiro?

[rishaed]

Show me before tomorrow conclusive proof that you're ageing and you didn't become ageless and immortal through a miracle of your faith the second you started reading this post. I will only accept evidence I can observe directly by the way, the same standard you are asking for on a process that happens millions of times slower than ageing...

DId I really break the rules?
He did not specify a specific area of time. Are you referring to the show me before tomorrow? Sure dead skin cells are proof of death and time and if i just scrap them away from said body it works. However, not once in the video did RC specify a specific timeframe just the fact that it can be observed. (Over the span of his, or a persons, life).
And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.
We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important."
I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

[BigBallinStalin]

I hope crispy bits won't mind me taking first crack at this one.

A. Scabs,injuries and other things can tell me that by body is changing and is not constant.

While you might be able to show me examples of microchanges taking place within or on the surface of the body, these change are far too small to suggest the ludicrous macrochanges put forth by those arguing that we age and eventually die. Indeed, the idea that the human body will always stop the bleeding of a scratch or scrape is one of the most obvious arguments against aging. Whenever something negatively impacts a human being, whether it be a scraped knee or a cold, the body automatically does everything it can to fix the harm that has been done. So, the question is begged, why would the same not hold true for this fabled aging process? Surely the body would work to counter such a slow acting process? Ageists just can't seem to keep their story straight.

B. One word CALENDAR.

Breaking the rules that were laid out. I might as well just say "Two words OBSERVABLE HISTORY".

C. I come from a mortal line of people, who I can observe as they die, and as other people die.

Aside from again breaking the rules, did you ever meet your great great great grandparents? Did you personally witness your own birth? How can you be sure that you weren't created this morning with the appearance (and artificial memories) of age, much in the way young Earth creationists argue the universe was created to look ancient?

D. Facial Hair, Loss of Baby Teeth, Growth of breasts in females, Voice cracking are all signs of aging in adolescence.

Microchanges, unjustified extrapolating, has never been observed in one day, circumstantial evidence.

E. Grey hair, hair loss, changes in Eyesight, Height changes (growth when young, shrink when older), Hearing.

There are plenty of colors of hair, I've never seen all of someones hair fall out instantly, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease), has never been observed in one day, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease).

F. Change of desires and maturity.

You're just saying that aging proves aging here.

G. Changes in Bone brittleness, bones become more brittle as people get older, also why they break easier.

More of the same,

Want more? There are lots of ways to observe aging even over a slow period of time. As for mortality? Well, I'd rather not test that one quite yet for myself to see if i became immortal from reading your post. I'll just have to know that the human race is mortal, and barring unforeseen circumstances I will say that I am too.

No, no, no. You can't use a slow period of time. I want the evidence now. Nobody has ever witnessed someone grow old and die within a day. Crocoduck.

Do you at least see the point of this? There is a clear parallel between this and the demand to see evolution (a process that even at its fastest occurs on a timescale of millions of years) occur within a lifetime.

+1 team Frigidus and crispybits

DAMN THOSE ARGUMENTS BY ANALOGY
(the opposition should attack the analogous reasoning).

[Frigidus]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important."

Er...even if we had solid historical records from four thousand years ago it would still be a trivial amount of time for the kind of changes that you're looking to occur. I mean, in modern times alone we have observed things such as moth coloration changing to suit the environment, but if you're looking for a change on the order of old world monkey to human five thousand years is hardly a drop in the bucket. I mean, humans are estimated to have crossed over to the Americas something like 30,000 years ago and we still hadn't had enough time to split into different species before we all met up again.

I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

People are convicted every day for murders that nobody was around to witness but them (and their victims). This doesn't mean that we are taking their guilt as an article of faith. We are able to look at evidence and extrapolate.

[crispybits]

DId I really break the rules? Yes
He did not specify a specific area of time. Are you referring to the show me before tomorrow? Yes Sure dead skin cells are proof of death and time and if i just scrap them away from said body it works. No, dead skin cells die and you have more skin underneath, skin that looks exactly like the skin that you scraped off - no evidence of ageing there. However, not once in the video did RC specify a specific timeframe just the fact that it can be observed. (Over the span of his, or a persons, life). So he didnt specify a timeframe, but he did specify within a lifetime - which one is it?
And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand. God made the world to seem as if it has existed for all those years on the calendars, when actually he made it this morning with the apearance of age. We are all mere hours old.
We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We can and we have, because your pastor tells you that everything biologists say is a lie because it proves his untestable and unobservable hypothesis wrong does not make that the truth, We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history Lies, as I said the universe is only hours old if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important." Just as ludicrous to think that this unproven ageing process happens in our hours old universe. Since this morning I have never seen someone grow old and die - some people were created old this morning is all.
I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

We give you the timeframe of 4 billion years. The only argument you have against 4 billion years is that the bible says it's not so. Everything else points to it being so. Of course a human lifespan is much shorter than 4 billion years so one human, or indeed the entire written and oral history of the human race doesn't stretch that far (250,000 years at most, and more like just under 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age) but that's not proof that 4 billion years doesn't exist, just that humans weren't around to see it all. To claim otherwise (that humans were created in a universe with the appearance of age) is directly analogous to the claim that the universe was created this morning and we are not ageing.

[Woodruff]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

[crispybits]

But has nobody told you Woodruff, when God created the universe a few thousand years ago he made it look old, he created it with light rays already in transit, etc etc

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, this must be embarrassing for the creationists/young earthers.

I guess they could relax the standards of logic by declaring that the "just this morning" analogy is ridiculous.

[crispybits]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true becuase that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

[Jdsizzleslice]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, that's another way to relax the standards of logic! Good job, JD.

[chang50]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Except a scientific theory is totally different to the type of theory you are referring to.Unless you think the theory of gravity,or atomic theory or the germ theory of disease are temporary explanations.By which standard all of science is temporary explanation and we can know nothing to be true,including the truth of the claims made in holy books.
What reason,other than circular logic do you have for believing the bible sets the facts in stone?

[crispybits]

Haha, this must be embarrassing for the creationists/young earthers.

I guess they could relax the standards of logic by declaring that the "just this morning" analogy is ridiculous.

Also, if they do I'd like to know why it's ridiculous to believe the universe was created fully formed and artifically aged a few thousand years ago but not this morning.

[Woodruff]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on what the idea of "theory" means in scientific circles. For example, the theory of gravity.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Did I somehow overlook that you were being sarcastic? Surely this is sarcasm, isn't it?

[universalchiro]

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

Look, ya'll don't understand what you believe. You are going on faith alone.
A. You weren't there.
B. It's not observable.
C. Radiometric dating/Radioactive Isotopic dating seems well and dandy, but with a closer look, there are some serious flaws with this dating system.

Radioactive dating:
#Pb ions/ #Po ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of item being tested.

The problem is with the "Constant Rate of Decay". How do you know the rate of decay has always been constant? I know it seems constant with our short term viewing. But consider this,
Is there evidence in nature that the Rate of Decay can be accelerated? Yes . Petrified wood is suppose to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980 & has produced petrified wood in only 30 years. WOW! a 499,970 year acceleration.
Is there evidence that mankind can accelerate the "Constant" Rate of decay? Yes.
Take a piece of wood + trace clay + -O2 (vacuum) + H2O + heat (150 C) + pressure + time (8 months) = 100% coal in only 8 months.... Coal that is indistinguishable with coal that is suppose to take 20 million years to form via the "Constant Rate of Decay" process.
Chicken farmers sends byproducts to distilleries and within 30 minutes of heating the byproducts, 100% petroleum oil is produced. A process that is suppose to take 50 million years...

So Nature can accelerate petrification from 500,000 years down to 30 years.
Humans can accelerate coalification from 20 million years down to 8 months.
Humans can accelerate the petroleum production from 50 million years down to 30 minutes.

Why do you take this great leap of faith that the "Constant Rate of Decay" has always been constant? Why? Because it's faith based.

Look at the Grand Canyon: If each layer took millions or even thousands of years to form, there would be massive commingling of layers. But that is not what we see. There are distinct layers.

Darwinian Evolution of changing of kinds, is not observable, nor testable. Only thing evolutionist do is see adaptation & say that's proof of evolution. ie the Galapagos Finches that have adapted, They are still finches.... and the Bacteria that has adapted, are still bacteria.

[rishaed]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

But the flaw with radiometric dating is that it cannot calculate how much of said isotope was already present. It must assume that it is at zero. Manmade artifacts work usually i theorize because the ones that last usually have gone through a refinement process. Depending on how much of the substance is present you are dealing with a very LARGE margin of error. Not that I'm saying that the earth isn't old, what I'm saying is that we cannot in present time determine its age.

We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important."

Er...even if we had solid historical records from four thousand years ago it would still be a trivial amount of time for the kind of changes that you're looking to occur. I mean, in modern times alone we have observed things such as moth coloration changing to suit the environment, but if you're looking for a change on the order of old world monkey to human five thousand years is hardly a drop in the bucket. I mean, humans are estimated to have crossed over to the Americas something like 30,000 years ago and we still hadn't had enough time to split into different species before we all met up again.

This falls under ADAPTATION or Speciation (caused by genetic drift) which is:Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.[1] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.
, its still the same moth. Also noted that It may cause GENE VARIANTS TO DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY, showing the loss of the required DNA in the species to reverse the Genetic drift.

I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

People are convicted every day for murders that nobody was around to witness but them (and their victims). This doesn't mean that we are taking their guilt as an article of faith. We are able to look at evidence and extrapolate.

This quite true however the evidence has been tested, proven, and can be replicated in different cases. Such as Fingerprints and DNA. Why? Because they are unique to every person and don't give false-positives. Unless the person was framed, but i digress. But my question here is you still haven't provided evidence that people can extrapolate from, for anything other than adaptation.
fp'd

[rishaed]

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything. Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve. So if the Christ believes in a literal Genesis account, ...

Very interesting, but stupid.

1. Adam and Eve are not in Genesis 1.
2. Jesus was talking about the story of Eve as it relates to marriage.
3. Jesus never uses the word "literal."
4. Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (which is why the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath). This would not be true of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Jesus NEVER used the word literal......Does it mean that some of the things he said shouldn't be taken literally, NO!
In what way is it not literal? IF you are referring to quoting ad verbatim, then no it is not literal. However when GOD gave definite boundaries through the word usage and context, then why do you fight it?

[rishaed]

I hope crispy bits won't mind me taking first crack at this one.

C. I come from a mortal line of people, who I can observe as they die, and as other people die.

Aside from again breaking the rules, did you ever meet your great great great grandparents? Did you personally witness your own birth? How can you be sure that you weren't created this morning with the appearance (and artificial memories) of age, much in the way young Earth creationists argue the universe was created to look ancient?

How does this break the rules? I can take you to the cemetery where they died, where if you wanted and had the proper permissions, you could exhume them and see if I was telling the truth. And I might not have met my great great great grandparents, but i did meet my great grandfather, shortly before he died. My Grandmother has died in my lifetime, 100 people die a minute and 146,000 people die every day. I can show you photographs during my childhood of myself. That are distinctly and defined, in a way that I can prove they are me. There are many ways to show that I wasn't created this morning with artificial memories.

D. Facial Hair, Loss of Baby Teeth, Growth of breasts in females, Voice cracking are all signs of aging in adolescence.

Microchanges, unjustified extrapolating, has never been observed in one day, circumstantial evidence.

E. Grey hair, hair loss, changes in Eyesight, Height changes (growth when young, shrink when older), Hearing.

There are plenty of colors of hair, I've never seen all of someones hair fall out instantly, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease), has never been observed in one day, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease). Height changes slowly over night when you sleep. (Tis a fact) It is small almost unnoticable but if you were measured everymorning it would be slightly different.

F. Change of desires and maturity.

You're just saying that aging proves aging here.

G. Changes in Bone brittleness, bones become more brittle as people get older, also why they break easier.

More of the same,

Want more? There are lots of ways to observe aging even over a slow period of time. As for mortality? Well, I'd rather not test that one quite yet for myself to see if i became immortal from reading your post. I'll just have to know that the human race is mortal, and barring unforeseen circumstances I will say that I am too.

No, no, no. You can't use a slow period of time. I want the evidence now. Nobody has ever witnessed someone grow old and die within a day. Crocoduck.

Do you at least see the point of this? There is a clear parallel between this and the demand to see evolution (a process that even at its fastest occurs on a timescale of millions of years) occur within a lifetime.[/quote]
So basically you are stating that we must take aging based on faith, but also EVOLUTION based on blind faith as well. I can pull things out of my past (even recent past) that show that I have physical changes and do change.