Conquer Club

Post Any Evidence For God Here

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:18 pm

john9blue wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:maybe for someone like you who doesn't question things.

Oh yes, I'm the type of guy who doesn't question things. Right, gotcha.


i apologize for so bluntly contradicting the unwritten doctrine of atheism which states that only people who subscribe to the principles of atheism are open-minded.

your deprogramming has just begun, gilly.


That's funny, I thought the "unwritten doctrine" (tho maybe someone has written it down by now) was "I don't believe there is a God."

The fact we call people who cling to dogmatic belief systems dogmatic doesn't mean we reserve open minded exclusively for ourselves...
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:25 pm

Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:09 pm

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


The amazing deeds of natural selection to discover 2 life saving involuntary reflexes for newborns. Involuntary means they don't chose to perform this reflex, it's built into their DNA to perform this task:

1. root reflex
This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his/her head and open his/her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast to begin feeding. Without this reflex, babies would not nourish properly and would be underdeveloped and susceptible to disease. By the way, this reflex is in all creatures that suckle the breast for milk. Without this reflex, most animals would go extinct, for mom's would have a tough time licking their young onto the nipple.

2. suck reflex
When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin in the womb. Wow could you imagine the disaster of such ill fated timing? This reflex is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Wow what an incredible stroke of luck for babies to also have a sucking reflex. Which causes them to suck in milk from the breast. Otherwise, babies would die. This is also in all animals that suckle the breast for nutrition. Without this reflex, all creatures that rely on breast milk for survival would die. Remember, many creatures are born blind.

Believers know this is just one of the innumerable marvels of God and how He sustains His creation.
Evolutionist, think wow that was a nice natural process to evolve... But they never want to think, well how did the first billion newborn survive when these involuntary reflexes were not developed yet... Hokem

Let's not forget that newborns lack teeth. and boy that is a crucial element for the mother. wonder how long that took to evolve that idea? LOL

-------------------------------
God commands Abraham to circumcise his son on the 8th day. Why the 8th day, why not the 1st day or the 1 year? What is so special about the 8th day? Fast forward 4,000 years, scientist have finally discerned that on the 8th day, there is a one time peek of coagulating proteins & Vitamin K, to decrease bleeding duration to the lowest point in a human's life.

Even the manner of circumcision prescribed by God, flint knives (Joshua 5:2). Such newly sharpened knives are practically sterile. Wait, how does one do trial and error with determining newly sharpened flint knives are sterile? They don't. This shows the Bible was supernaturally written to know bacteria hygiene before germ theory was discovered.

-----------------------------------
All hail the glory of natural selection. For "it" just happened to cause fetus' to have a foramen ovale and ductus arteriosus. What are these two odd sounding Latin words. Well they are describing where an opening in the fetal circulatory system is. Without these openings, the fetus will die of hypoxia. What do they do?

Foramen ovale: is an opening between the left & right atriums of the heart. This opening allows the mother's oxygenated blood to enter the fetus and keep it alive. Without this opening, the fetus will die. This opening, (all praise to natural selection for figuring this one out) closes when the neonate is born and laid on his/her right side down to breast feed on the left breast closest to the heart. Additional changes in lung pressure assist in this closure. If this stays open, then the circulatory system is not functioning properly, which results in early fatigue and weakness & increase susceptibility to sickness.

Ductus arteriosus: This opening allows blood from the mother to bypass the fetus' fluid filled, non-functioning lungs. This also closes at birth when the neonate takes it's first breath of air. If this stays open, then the neonate could die from hypertension, congestive heart failure or have cardiac arrhythmias.

Imagine how many trillions of fetus' of all the creatures on earth that natural selection had to go through (kill) to get this right. Or maybe it just got lucky, again... Hokem

Believers in God see this as one of the innumerable wonders of God and His creation.

Evolutionist, shrug their shoulders and say, well we evolved to this state of complexities... But with their own words they hang themselves. For all beginner physics students know that everything goes from order to disorder. And going from a single cell amoeba to the complexities of the Ductus arteriousus & Foramen Ovale is beyond calculable.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:52 pm

Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:maybe for someone like you who doesn't question things.

Oh yes, I'm the type of guy who doesn't question things. Right, gotcha.


i apologize for so bluntly contradicting the unwritten doctrine of atheism which states that only people who subscribe to the principles of atheism are open-minded.

your deprogramming has just begun, gilly.

God you're an idiot. (pun intended)

Do you want me to compile a list of the threads I've started that questions commonly held beliefs? Or would you rather crawl out of the ring on all fours and change the subject?

Hmm, well, the problem is that automatically questioning beliefs because they are common or long-held is just as narrow minded as accepting the same.

Neither john9blue nor myself really fit your pat stereotypes. That might clue you in to the fact that you are not quite being as open minded as you believe.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:17 pm

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


The amazing deeds of natural selection to discover 2 life saving involuntary reflexes for newborns. Involuntary means they don't chose to perform this reflex, it's built into their DNA to perform this task:

1. root reflex
This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his/her head and open his/her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast to begin feeding. Without this reflex, babies would not nourish properly and would be underdeveloped and susceptible to disease. By the way, this reflex is in all creatures that suckle the breast for milk. Without this reflex, most animals would go extinct, for mom's would have a tough time licking their young onto the nipple.

2. suck reflex
When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin in the womb. Wow could you imagine the disaster of such ill fated timing? This reflex is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Wow what an incredible stroke of luck for babies to also have a sucking reflex. Which causes them to suck in milk from the breast. Otherwise, babies would die. This is also in all animals that suckle the breast for nutrition. Without this reflex, all creatures that rely on breast milk for survival would die. Remember, many creatures are born blind.

Uh, OK.. but in what way does that dispute evolution.

universalchiro wrote:Believers know this is just one of the innumerable marvels of God and how He sustains His creation.
Not really. Sure, it is a marvel and sure God created us and all that, but the belief doesn't come from this or any other obscure fact/anomoly or wonderous occurance. Belief comes from knowing in your heart that it is true.

And no, you cannot trot that out and prove it. Sorry, you cannot. Pretending you can makes you seem the fool.

universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist, think wow that was a nice natural process to evolve... But they never want to think, well how did the first billion newborn survive when these involuntary reflexes were not developed yet... Hokem

Not even close.

Begin with, as I and others have pointed out, NOTHING about evolution says God doesn't exist. End with, just.. no. You only show that you cannot be bothered to understand the theory you claim to criticize. Seriously.


universalchiro wrote:Let's not forget that newborns lack teeth. and boy that is a crucial element for the mother. wonder how long that took to evolve that idea?
LOL nice try, that. You have it pretty close to backwards. Many mammalian infants are born with teeth -- calves, horses, etc, etc, etc. Even a few human babies are born with teeth. And, well, you haven't talked to a lot of nursing moms. Babies nurse with teeth just fine and without hurting the mom.

Also, sucking or something like that pretty much had to come before teeth, the same way mouth happened before teeth.


universalchiro wrote:-------------------------------
God commands Abraham to circumcise his son on the 8th day. Why the 8th day, why not the 1st day or the 1 year? What is so special about the 8th day? Fast forward 4,000 years, scientist have finally discerned that on the 8th day, there is a one time peek of coagulating proteins & Vitamin K, to decrease bleeding duration to the lowest point in a human's life.
Absolutely true, which shows how the rules of God were not purely arbitrary, etc.

It does not, however, in any way declare evolution false. And, really doesn't even prove that God is real. Some would argue that the Rabbis were merely smart enough to discern that infants circumcised at this time fared better and then pronounced it as a "Godly" command. I don't believe this, but that is because I do believe the Bible. Anyone not already believing the Bible won't just because the rabbis got the timing for circumcision correct.

universalchiro wrote:Even the manner of circumcision prescribed by God, flint knives (Joshua 5:2). Such newly sharpened knives are practically sterile. Wait, how does one do trial and error with determining newly sharpened flint knives are sterile? They don't. This shows the Bible was supernaturally written to know bacteria hygiene before germ theory was discovered.

oh Pleeaase....

THIS is why creationists are so often dismissed, because too often you make such idiotic arguments. "Trial and error" are pretty much exactly how most things ARE discovered. The process is pretty straight forward and simple... you use a newly sharpened knife and the babies do better. Also, sterility would not necessarily be any concept these people would have understood. What they would have understood is that a sharp knife cuts better, more cleanly and therefore is a better tool for such a delicate operation.
-----------------------------------
universalchiro wrote:All hail the glory of natural selection. For "it" just happened to cause fetus' to have a foramen ovale and ductus arteriosus. What are these two odd sounding Latin words. Well they are describing where an opening in the fetal circulatory system is. Without these openings, the fetus will die of hypoxia. What do they do?

Foramen ovale: is an opening between the left & right atriums of the heart. This opening allows the mother's oxygenated blood to enter the fetus and keep it alive. Without this opening, the fetus will die. This opening, (all praise to natural selection for figuring this one out) closes when the neonate is born and laid on his/her right side down to breast feed on the left breast closest to the heart. Additional changes in lung pressure assist in this closure. If this stays open, then the circulatory system is not functioning properly, which results in early fatigue and weakness & increase susceptibility to sickness.

Ductus arteriosus: This opening allows blood from the mother to bypass the fetus' fluid filled, non-functioning lungs. This also closes at birth when the neonate takes it's first breath of air. If this stays open, then the neonate could die from hypertension, congestive heart failure or have cardiac arrhythmias.

Imagine how many trillions of fetus' of all the creatures on earth that natural selection had to go through (kill) to get this right. Or maybe it just got lucky, again... Hokem


Uh, no. You had a series of die-offs, changes to the entire earth that essentially "forced" major change. Definitely not gradual, uniform natural selection as you seem to wish. At any rate... billions of years. And, sure.. I DO "insert God", but the above just is not proof, or even close.

universalchiro wrote:Believers in God see this as one of the innumerable wonders of God and His creation.
Maybe.

universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist, shrug their shoulders and say, well we evolved to this state of complexities... But with their own words they hang themselves. For all beginner physics students know that everything goes from order to disorder. And going from a single cell amoeba to the complexities of the Ductus arteriousus & Foramen Ovale is beyond calculable.

Uh, no. But you do a pretty good job of showing how little you understand of the science you are claiming to criticize.

Why remain ignorant if you are so sure you are correct? Why not actually teach what scientists really say, instead of the above pretended garbage, designed merely so creationists can refute it? Your "ideas" of evolution are just fiction. If you wish to criticize evolution, you need to actually understand evolution.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:58 pm

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

I love how evolution is so clean with it's evolving:
100% of Gorillas evolved to not have a tail. Wow what a coincidence.
100% of humans evolved to not have gills. Wow what a coincidence.
100% of Primates don't produce flowers. Wow what a coincidence.
100% of fish don't use photosynthesis. Wow what a coincidence.

All hail the glory of natural selection to be so, so tidy, so neat. Wow what a coincidence. Hokem

To God be the Glory.

When an evolutionist is cornered to show observable testable evidence, they say well, it's not observable in a short period of 6,000 years. When an evolutionist is cornered about how the sucking reflex finally evolved, they say it happened over a quick period of time. This is voodoo science. Not observable, nor testable. Just faith alone.

Oh and they have nothing to say about evidence that proves evolution that has been proven fabricated by liars. ie
Lucy the missing link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bac ... 1429/posts
Haeckel's embryo drawings : http://creationwiki.org/Ernst_Haeckel
Archeoraptor : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
Piltdown man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Java Man: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html
Nebraska Man: http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/07/09 ... d-mondays/

The list keeps going... What lie will evolutionist bring next. The irony, many lies to support one big lie.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Lootifer on Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:35 pm

UC do you do a lot of weights?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:45 pm

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:52 am

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

I love how evolution is so clean with it's evolving:
100% of Gorillas evolved to not have a tail. Wow what a coincidence.
100% of humans evolved to not have gills. Wow what a coincidence.
100% of Primates don't produce flowers. Wow what a coincidence.
100% of fish don't use photosynthesis. Wow what a coincidence.

So your claim is that these things don't happen or that evolution cannot explain them?

Your "argument" doesn't even make sense. Scientists study what IS, study evidence. Often what is found doesn't seem to "make sense". No one but young earth creationists try to claim it should.

AND.. the Bible doesn't say anything about the world making sense in that manner, either.


universalchiro wrote:All hail the glory of natural selection to be so, so tidy, so neat. Wow what a coincidence. Hokem

To God be the Glory.

universalchiro wrote:When an evolutionist is cornered to show observable testable evidence, they say well, it's not observable in a short period of 6,000 years. When an evolutionist is cornered about how the sucking reflex finally evolved, they say it happened over a quick period of time. This is voodoo science. Not observable, nor testable. Just faith alone.

Now you descend into flat out lying. There is a word for those who lie in the name of Christ.. Blasphemers. You might want to review what the Bible says about them before proceeding more.

In fact, evolution HAS been observed. Evolution is, plain and simply, gradual change over time. There is no artificial line that says "micro changes" are OK, but "macro changes" don't happen. That claim is made by creationists because they have found the evidence of small change is very, very evident even to young kids. They try to say that these changes happen, but then somehow just stop at a certain point and never get to species differentiation.

There are 2 reasons this is just plain false. First, we can observe evolution in some organisms. Every natural plant hybrid, every breeding change is evolution. In most of those cases, it is steered by humans, but the point is that it is just natural gene changes that happen. (NOT talking about genetic modification) That doesn't "prove" evolution, no, but that is not necessary. The point is it proves that such change is possible, given the correct conditions. On farms, and so forth, the correct conditions are farmers who pick out specific animals or plants that meet their desires. In nature, it is various events. Today, humans are creating a lot of major events that are unintentionally driving evolution to speed up around us. Kill off all but a small segment of a population and evolution happens! (and note, NO scientist actually says that the entire theory of evolution is "proven" ... neither is the theory of gravity actually "proven", its just that there are no viable alternatives with anything even partially close to the same level of evidence. You actually demonstrate this pretty well in your "proof", which shows only how little you know of what you claim).

Then we look to the fossils. While there are many cases of people who have misunderstood, even created outright fraud in trying to prove various links, there are many, many other fossils that do show pretty clear changes over long periods of time. Darwin's sloths and Finches are just 2 famous examples in macrovertebrates. The record is absolutely spotty and inconsistent, that is, some lines of descent are very well documented, with many fossils showing clear transitions. Others are much less so. Some species have essentially unknown lines of descent. BUT.. that is only important in regards to the individual species/lines of descent. To show that evolution is potentially possible, only a few lines of descent are necessary. Even a few lines are enough to show that your assertion that there is no evidence, that no evolution happened.. that YOUR assertions are just plain wrong.

universalchiro wrote:Oh and they have nothing to say about evidence that proves evolution that has been proven fabricated by liars. ie

hmm.... and who, exactly are you claiming DISCOVERED those errors? Are you trying to claim these errors were found by young earthers? NO!!! These errors were found by scientists, mostly evolutionary scientists who analyzed findings of colleagues. That is how science works.

I don't care what profession you pick out, there are charlatans and liars and incompetents in all. Science is no exception, but to claim this is some triumph of creationism over evolution is false. OR.. care to bring up any of the documents you DO believe? I spent 2 years going through publications put out by IRC. THAT was a pack of lies!!!



We have already answered every one of those, either earlier in this thread or in one of the many other creation vs evolution threads in CC.

BUT, the biggest error is your attempt to claim that any error are somehow proof that the entire theory of evolution and all the real and proven true evidence that exists is false. That is like claiming that all you have to do to prove Christianity false is to find one pastor who gives false information or who commits crimes.

universalchiro wrote:The list keeps going... What lie will evolutionist bring next. The irony, many lies to support one big lie.
[/quote]I see, so in your view, the people who FOUND these errors are liars?

Nice try, but no... all you show is laziness on your part. You have not even come up with any real, new evidence, only the same old saws that keep getting refuted.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:03 pm

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

All hail the magical skill of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. For the human DNA genome when mapped out on paper, normal size font, single spacing, has so much information, that if piled high, with written on front and back page, the stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument. Literally 100's of reams of information. Amounting to 3 billion forms of the A,C,T,G bases
https://www.broadinstitute.org/educatio ... ary/genome

Don't be fooled, the random, blinded and undirected action of natural selection can not alter a creature's genome in a meaningful way to form new information to form another phylum, especially in the short amount of time as the Cambrian explosion of 20+ Phylum (which each has sub-phylum and classes, so there are 100's of new life formed very quickly in the fossil record in the Cambrian) that appear without a connecting predecessor. The slow evolving process is to slow to account for the explosion of 100's of life forms in 5-6 million years going from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian and this is unexplainable by all evolutionist.
This is geologically sudden: when going up the rock strata, the 100's of new life forms appear without a connecting preceding predecessor.
This is biologically sudden: In relation to how slow Darwinian mechanism of change works. The rate of change that evolutionist adhere to is too slow to account for this explosion of life. The waiting time to do minor changes, such as to change a protein, is longer than life has been on earth.

The faith of evolutionist to believe that the unguided, undirected, random mutations can build coordinated series of mutations with the DNA code to build something fundamentally new is beyond what Christians deal with in their faith. For any tampering with the DNA code will most likely degrade the code, not enhance it.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Frigidus on Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:15 pm

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

All hail the magical skill of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. For the human DNA genome when mapped out on paper, normal size font, single spacing, has so much information, that if piled high, with written on front and back page, the stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument. Literally 100's of reams of information. Amounting to 3 billion forms of the A,C,T,G bases
https://www.broadinstitute.org/educatio ... ary/genome

Don't be fooled, the random, blinded and undirected action of natural selection can not alter a creature's genome in a meaningful way to form new information to form another phylum, especially in the short amount of time as the Cambrian explosion of 20+ Phylum (which each has sub-phylum and classes, so there are 100's of new life formed very quickly in the fossil record in the Cambrian) that appear without a connecting predecessor. The slow evolving process is to slow to account for the explosion of 100's of life forms in 5-6 million years going from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian and this is unexplainable by all evolutionist.
This is geologically sudden: when going up the rock strata, the 100's of new life forms appear without a connecting preceding predecessor.
This is biologically sudden: In relation to how slow Darwinian mechanism of change works. The rate of change that evolutionist adhere to is too slow to account for this explosion of life. The waiting time to do minor changes, such as to change a protein, is longer than life has been on earth.

The faith of evolutionist to believe that the unguided, undirected, random mutations can build coordinated series of mutations with the DNA code to build something fundamentally new is beyond what Christians deal with in their faith. For any tampering with the DNA code will most likely degrade the code, not enhance it.


So anyone have any theories as to why chiro feels the need to write long posts directed at nobody that he has no interest in defending?
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Lootifer on Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:56 pm

My latest theory (which explains my previous post) is hes a reformed bodybuilder who took one too many shots of anabolic steroids and has subsequently gone bonkers.

His avatar shows a tanned solid looking chap, works for me.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:35 am

Frigidus wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

All hail the magical skill of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. For the human DNA genome when mapped out on paper, normal size font, single spacing, has so much information, that if piled high, with written on front and back page, the stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument. Literally 100's of reams of information. Amounting to 3 billion forms of the A,C,T,G bases
https://www.broadinstitute.org/educatio ... ary/genome

Don't be fooled, the random, blinded and undirected action of natural selection can not alter a creature's genome in a meaningful way to form new information to form another phylum, especially in the short amount of time as the Cambrian explosion of 20+ Phylum (which each has sub-phylum and classes, so there are 100's of new life formed very quickly in the fossil record in the Cambrian) that appear without a connecting predecessor. The slow evolving process is to slow to account for the explosion of 100's of life forms in 5-6 million years going from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian and this is unexplainable by all evolutionist.
This is geologically sudden: when going up the rock strata, the 100's of new life forms appear without a connecting preceding predecessor.
This is biologically sudden: In relation to how slow Darwinian mechanism of change works. The rate of change that evolutionist adhere to is too slow to account for this explosion of life. The waiting time to do minor changes, such as to change a protein, is longer than life has been on earth.

The faith of evolutionist to believe that the unguided, undirected, random mutations can build coordinated series of mutations with the DNA code to build something fundamentally new is beyond what Christians deal with in their faith. For any tampering with the DNA code will most likely degrade the code, not enhance it.


So anyone have any theories as to why chiro feels the need to write long posts directed at nobody that he has no interest in defending?

Because the evolutionist use argumentum ad hominem.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Lootifer on Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:40 am

Oh rest assured UC, id think you an idiot regardless of what stance I have on where we came from.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Frigidus on Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:40 am

universalchiro wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

All hail the magical skill of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. For the human DNA genome when mapped out on paper, normal size font, single spacing, has so much information, that if piled high, with written on front and back page, the stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument. Literally 100's of reams of information. Amounting to 3 billion forms of the A,C,T,G bases
https://www.broadinstitute.org/educatio ... ary/genome

Don't be fooled, the random, blinded and undirected action of natural selection can not alter a creature's genome in a meaningful way to form new information to form another phylum, especially in the short amount of time as the Cambrian explosion of 20+ Phylum (which each has sub-phylum and classes, so there are 100's of new life formed very quickly in the fossil record in the Cambrian) that appear without a connecting predecessor. The slow evolving process is to slow to account for the explosion of 100's of life forms in 5-6 million years going from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian and this is unexplainable by all evolutionist.
This is geologically sudden: when going up the rock strata, the 100's of new life forms appear without a connecting preceding predecessor.
This is biologically sudden: In relation to how slow Darwinian mechanism of change works. The rate of change that evolutionist adhere to is too slow to account for this explosion of life. The waiting time to do minor changes, such as to change a protein, is longer than life has been on earth.

The faith of evolutionist to believe that the unguided, undirected, random mutations can build coordinated series of mutations with the DNA code to build something fundamentally new is beyond what Christians deal with in their faith. For any tampering with the DNA code will most likely degrade the code, not enhance it.


So anyone have any theories as to why chiro feels the need to write long posts directed at nobody that he has no interest in defending?

Because the evolutionist use argumentum ad hominem.


I prefer to use argumentum irrefutabilis. Unfortunately you unilaterally ended our conversation.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:23 am

Lootifer wrote:My latest theory (which explains my previous post) is hes a reformed bodybuilder who took one too many shots of anabolic steroids and has subsequently gone bonkers.

His avatar shows a tanned solid looking chap, works for me.


When the balls shrink, what else does one have?

Let us toast to his belligerent dedication to one faith of many beliefs!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Lootifer on Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:32 pm

Here here!
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:51 am

Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:40 am

I'm always utterly amazed at how those who haven't an inkling about how evolution actually works or even have a grasp of basic biology still bleat on with the vaguest of arguments, as if their attempts at biological logic actually make sense. It's astounding. "hurr-durr why don't humans have gills."

Go read some fucking biology textbooks or something. Seriously.

(oh hey, Kevin Costner had gills once lolol)

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:13 am

BUt but but universalchiaro is an alleged doctor of... um... something.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:25 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:BUt but but universalchiaro is an alleged doctor of... um... something.


ImageImage
ImageImage


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby chang50 on Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:55 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:BUt but but universalchiaro is an alleged doctor of... um... something.


Chiropractic apparently which some regard as quackery.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:04 pm

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

All hail the magical skill of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. For the human DNA genome when mapped out on paper, normal size font, single spacing, has so much information, that if piled high, with written on front and back page, the stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument. Literally 100's of reams of information. Amounting to 3 billion forms of the A,C,T,G bases
https://www.broadinstitute.org/educatio ... ary/genome

Don't be fooled, the random, blinded and undirected action of natural selection can not alter a creature's genome in a meaningful way to form new information to form another phylum, especially in the short amount of time as the Cambrian explosion of 20+ Phylum (which each has sub-phylum and classes, so there are 100's of new life formed very quickly in the fossil record in the Cambrian) that appear without a connecting predecessor. The slow evolving process is to slow to account for the explosion of 100's of life forms in 5-6 million years going from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian and this is unexplainable by all evolutionist.
This is geologically sudden: when going up the rock strata, the 100's of new life forms appear without a connecting preceding predecessor.
This is biologically sudden: In relation to how slow Darwinian mechanism of change works. The rate of change that evolutionist adhere to is too slow to account for this explosion of life. The waiting time to do minor changes, such as to change a protein, is longer than life has been on earth.
Some of what you said is correct. the Cambrian explosion, and the fact that Darwin (and some other early evolutionists) did, initially think that evolution was basically a gradual, more or less consistent process driven entirely by natural selection, those are true. HOWEVER, the error comes on two fronts. First, evidence has LONG since demonstrated that natural selection and evolution are not the gradual processes Darwin first thought. Real evolutionary change happens "slowly" in OUR terms, but not in geologic terms! Given a huge disaster, something that decimates large portions of the earthly population and you are left with a few survivors who struggle to procreate. A few species might do well, more don't. The ones that survive are often the genetic anomalies, the "outliers". The population winds up shifting from its base" very rapidly. Some species, such as the horseshoe crab (which has persisted more or less unchanged), the Ceolocanth, etc, etc, may find niches where they can survive through luck or may just be able to withstand the new conditions well enough to endure. Others may die off completely. At any rate, whatever you think about what genes can and "cannnot" do, the fact is that this DID HAPPEN. Any argument saying "this is impossible" is just wrong because it did happen.

Second, your basic assumption, again, that this means God is excluded is just plain wrong. Nothing in the Bible or evolution indicates the other is false. The Bible says God created all, and gave a rough order (which, by-the-way, matches what evolution indicates). If you want to claim technical precision, as opposed to a description for non-technical and non scientific populations, then why mention so few species? In fact, there are plenty of reasons, just looking at the Bible to show that your ideas are plain wrong, are not at all what is asserted or indicated by the Bible. Further, as I indicated before, Christ said "he who believes in me shall be saved", NOT "he who denies evolution"will be saved". Funny how you focus YOUR faith on something Christ did not even mention! Funny for someone claiming to follow Christ, anyway!

universalchiro wrote:The faith of evolutionist to believe that the unguided, undirected, random mutations can build coordinated series of mutations with the DNA code to build something fundamentally new is beyond what Christians deal with in their faith. For any tampering with the DNA code will most likely degrade the code, not enhance it.

No, that's not evolution. That's just what young earth creatonist try to claim evolution is.

BUT.. this big about DNA creating something fundamentally new did happen. It IS happening.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:16 pm

NY Times wrote:By DOUGLAS QUENQUA
Published: August 19, 2013


Evolution isn’t supposed to be predictable. But a common, single-tailed microbe, left alone to feed on sugar, consistently produced future generations with multiple tails that were better suited to eating and reproducing. The experiment, conducted by Joao Xavier of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, not only defies conventional wisdom, it suggests a path for disease research. The microbe in question can cause infections in the lungs, and clues to its behavior could help counter its natural defenses.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:48 pm

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


God vs. Science
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely. '
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly.
Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment.
'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues.
'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent.
'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says.
He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir..'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?'
The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer.
'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
'Who created them?'
There is still no answer.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks.
'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing.
'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not..'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.
'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'
'Yes.’
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.
'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.
'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room.
'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?'
The class breaks out into laughter.
'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'
'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.
'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'
Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
Last edited by universalchiro on Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kizkiz