Post Any Evidence For God Here

[tzor]

Twice you used the word "Designed."

So who designed it?

It sort of designed itself.

Here is an intersesting point of design. How did Edison "design" the light bulb?

Answer: He tried as many things as he could until finally one filliment actually worked without burning itself out.

All designs that would not work out in the long term eventually failed. The one that worked succeeded. It's that simple.

[tzor]

Only the Fittest Survive.

Actually that's not true. It is better to say that the not so fit tend to not survive.

Never the less, in the history of the world many very fit things were driven to rapid extinction. The effects of random events on the envorinment can have a significant influence on a given species.

[Lionz]

Tzor,

Any thoughts on 2 Maccabees 7:28?

http://1611bible.com/kjv-king-james-ver ... ees/7.html

What if He existed even before energy and matter?

Crispy,

What do you want me to say about the moon and dust if I was the last one between us to post something mentioning them not counting a post with you quoting me and trying to summarize stuff?

To any atheist or agnostic,

What are you going to do when and if rebel angels show up publically in flying crafts and act like they are good guy aliens who helped evolve mankind from primates? Notice the History Channel already trying to promote an idea like some did? Well... Isaiah 24:21 and Daniel 2:43-44 and Daniel 8:9-12 and Daniel 11:38-39.

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/isaiah/24.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/2.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/8.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/11.html

[Viceroy63]

Tzor,

Any thoughts on 2 Maccabees 7:28?

http://1611bible.com/kjv-king-james-ver ... ees/7.html

Crispy,

What do you want me to say about the moon and dust if I was the last one between us to post something mentioning them not counting a post with you quoting me and trying to summarize stuff?

To any atheist or agnostic,

What are you going to do when and if rebel angels show up publically in flying crafts and act like they are good guy aliens who helped evolve mankind from primates? Notice the History Channel already trying to promote an idea like some did? Well... Isaiah 24:21 and Daniel 2:43-44 and Daniel 8:9-12 and Daniel 11:38-39.

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/isaiah/24.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/2.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/8.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/11.html

"I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise."
-Maccabees 7:28

Very Excellent point on the knowledge of man at that time. If you compare, those who believe in the Theory/unsubstantiated hypothesis of evolution, both agree that the world we behold with our eyes today arrived out of nothing. Yet while the the evolutionist attribute this to a mysterious "Big Bang" with out a cause, the creationist submit that the "Big Bang" was the Power of God to create a designed Universe with all the trimmings. Including mutations and natural selection. All a part of the design from the very beginning.

One side wants a creation without a creator and the other side accepts the truth, that in this Universe nothing happens without a cause. That nothing happens by accident. Everything here in this Universe is cause and effect and the only thing that is not under the law of cause and effect is the Creator of that Law. But the very nature of this Universe tells us that nothing happens by accident. If something happens without a cause then it goes against the very fabric of the Universal Laws of Existence.

One of the arguments used by evolutionist is where did God come from. And it is a really ridiculous question when you consider that there is no "From." Nothing existed before the creation. Not time and not space. So eternity is not measurable in what we conceive as from or to. From and To exist for our benefits. Linear time and three dimensional space were all part of the deal when it came to the creation of man. Otherwise there is no "From" from which God can come from. There was nothing, NO Thing existed except the great Cause of it all, God.

If only people knew and fully understood their awesome human potential and the reason for their very existence. Then theories like Evolution and the Origin of Species would fall in much better perspective.

[Metsfanmax]

Viceroy, there's no logical reason to suggest that creationism and evolutionary theory are mutually incompatible, which is what you seem to be doing. Biblical creationism is incompatible with contemporary theory, but that doesn't mean that all scientists are out there to disprove the existence of God. There are plenty of evolutionary scientists who personally believe in the idea of a creator. You just have to be more open minded about what that creator did, and not stuck to a narrative from a two thousand year old book.

[Haggis_McMutton]

To any atheist or agnostic,

What are you going to do when and if rebel angels show up publically in flying crafts and act like they are good guy aliens who helped evolve mankind from primates? Notice the History Channel already trying to promote an idea like some did? Well... Isaiah 24:21 and Daniel 2:43-44 and Daniel 8:9-12 and Daniel 11:38-39.

http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/isaiah/24.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/2.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/8.html
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/daniel/11.html

I'd either reduce or increase the amount of hallucinogens I'm taking. Not sure which.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Very Excellent point on the knowledge of man at that time. If you compare, those who believe in the Theory/unsubstantiated hypothesis of evolution, both agree that the world we behold with our eyes today arrived out of nothing. Yet while the the evolutionist attribute this to a mysterious "Big Bang" with out a cause, the creationist submit that the "Big Bang" was the Power of God to create a designed Universe with all the trimmings.

First of all, I'm glad you've renounced any semblance of a rational discussion and are now just declaring youself to be right cause it's obvious your right (which was your whole argument to begin with).

Secondly, you hit the nail on the head here.
Scientists are happy to say "I don't know" when we don't have a sufficient explanation for something like the Big Bang.
Theists however are scared of ever admiting ignorance, so they need their magical being as the ultimate cause of everything.

It's the same thinking exhibited in UFO enthusiasts. It goes like "hey this phenomena is odd, it seems to not be adequately explained by scientific knowledge atm, I know, it MUST be aliens".
The simple lack of knowledge somehow mandates the intervention of magical outside beings to plug that gap, cause ignorance is scary.

One side wants a creation without a creator and the other side accepts the truth, that in this Universe nothing happens without a cause. That nothing happens by accident. Everything here in this Universe is cause and effect and the only thing that is not under the law of cause and effect is the Creator of that Law. But the very nature of this Universe tells us that nothing happens by accident. If something happens without a cause then it goes against the very fabric of the Universal Laws of Existence.

Yep, further evidence of your fear of uncertainty.
Everything is settled, everything has a cause, everything will be allright. Comforting isn't it?
Why would you let mere facts get in the way of this lovely safety blanket?

One of the arguments used by evolutionist is where did God come from. And it is a really ridiculous question when you consider that there is no "From." Nothing existed before the creation. Not time and not space. So eternity is not measurable in what we conceive as from or to. From and To exist for our benefits. Linear time and three dimensional space were all part of the deal when it came to the creation of man. Otherwise there is no "From" from which God can come from. There was nothing, NO Thing existed except the great Cause of it all, God.

You do realize this exact same argument can work for a naturalistic explanation of the Big Bang, right? All you're saying is that the creation of our universe is outside of our understanding. That means it could just as easily be an infinity of things, only one of which is your potential god. Hell since it is beyond our comprehension it could quite literraly be "nothing" too, or it could be the matrix or it could be whatever the hell else.

If only people knew and fully understood their awesome human potential and the reason for their very existence. Then theories like Evolution and the Origin of Species would fall in much better perspective.

Indeed, if only people could let go of their comforting safety blanket and realise this is for real. Realise we make our destiny.
There is no watchful guardian out there taking care of us. There is no higher reason to justify all the suffering in the world. It's just us and an uncaring universe and it's up to us to get over our petty differences and make the most of it.

The harsh nature of reality is a hard pill to swallow, but a necessary one if we are to progress past our adolescence as a species. The good news is people are definitely growing up and realising there's no Sky Daddy(TM Blackglass industries) out there.

[2dimes]

To any atheist or agnostic,

What are you going to do when and if rebel angels show up publically in flying crafts and act like they are good guy aliens who helped evolve mankind from primates? Notice the History Channel already trying to promote an idea like some did?

I'd either reduce or increase the amount of hallucinogens I'm taking. Not sure which.

Good point. Many will just party on.

[crispybits]

Crispy,

What do you want me to say about the moon and dust if I was the last one between us to post something mentioning them not counting a post with you quoting me and trying to summarize stuff?

I asked a very direct and simple question, and that was:

OK Lionz - I pick the moon dust argument as the first one we should tackle. We can tackle other stoo but like I said one at a time.

To tackle this I'm going to pull together each quote I can find from you over the past 10 pages of this thread (turns out there's only 2 I could find skim reading through) and quote them here to try and give a good sense of your argument. Then I'll give you a chance to add anything else you would like to add, or correct anything you feel you have misrepresented about your position in any of the posts. Then I'll show you why you're wrong

The Moon's Dust

Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.

Concerning the moon and dust?

If you figure there is going to be a bunch of dust on something based on how old you think it is and how fast you think dust is collecting on it and you come to find there is barely any dust on it at all, is it more logical to assume the dust gathered alot slower than you thought than to consider a possibility that the something is younger than you thought?

Even if Snelling and Rush came forward and claimed that one or more thing was consistent with a current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ timescale, was there not very real concern about moon dust in the 1950s and 1960s? Just how much would an estimate be off even if the moon has less gravitational pull than the earth? Do you think 4,300,000 tons is a number came up with by some random guy trying to pick up moon dust with his hand on a mountain without considering differences between the sun and moon if Isaac Asimov actually published stuff in Science Digest? And what was simply Asimov?

"I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight. Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, J-nuary 1959, p. 36."

"Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72."

"Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]"

"Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]"
-http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes79.html

"Moon Dust
I have right here on the floor—since I am in my home city here—I have an actual porthole from a space capsule. It is so pitted, you can hardly see through it. Now, we have added a few more scratches through the years hauling this thing around. But, it was all pitted when they first took it out of the space capsule because out of space is full of dust. Imagine blasting off with all that! The reason it is pitted is because outer space is full of dust. And when they are traveling around at 18,000 miles an hour, they run into the dust and it hits the glass. Well, the earth and the moon are running around together—they’re running around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. So the earth and the moon are running into all this dust in space. Kind of like your windshield collects bugs certain times of the year, and it gets thicker and thicker on the surface of the moon and on the earth, this dust does, because it is running into it. The problem is, on earth we have air, which makes wind and water and any dust that lands here gets mixed in. Once in awhile you will see a little bit on your furniture from time to time. How many have seen [some] of that before? This cosmic dust coming in from outer space generally gets incorporated into soil. But on the moon they have no wind and no water. So any dust that lands on the moon is going to be undisturbed.

OK that's your two posts about moon dust. Do they fully represent your argument on this particular subject or would you like to add / amend anything?

If you want to pick a different topic then fine, but spell out your argument from the start please so we can keep it all nicely contained.

[Viceroy63]

Haggis:

I am glad that we finally agree that the "Big Bang" and creation was God after all.

Good job, Sir.

[Timminz]

This isn't evidence for god, but I figured this was the most appropriate therrad to throw this in.


Pat Robertson says, "Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.

They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible."

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis:

I am glad that we finally agree that the "Big Bang" and creation was God after all.

Good job, Sir.

Like I said, you aren't even pretending you have an argument anymore.

This is good, when all creationists will stop arguing and instead accept quiet resignation the movement pushing them to the margins of society will just accelerate that much more. Thanks for doing your part.

[Viceroy63]

I agree that the earth is older than 6,000 years but I also believe that the Bible is accurate and truthful in it's account of the recent history of man. The origin of nations testify to this fact and there is even evidence of a recent world wide flood as well which every nation on the planet has an ancient account of. Here is a link if anyone is interested in learning more about this...

http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/

Basically when ocean floor and sea life is found atop the highest mountains in the world and it's the same thing and same kind in all the continents, how can you explain that except that the world was once covered with the Oceans. A real "Water World." Then, when and as the waters receded, they caused certain scarring on the earth that could not have been done any other way. Does anyone really believe that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to make, with just a trickle of water from a tiny river???

Therefore if the Biblical flood is true then how can not the rest of the Bible be true as well?

Many would argue that frozen mammoth and even certain species of supposedly extinct dinosaurs are millions of Years old according to carbon dating. In the case of the mammoth tens of thousands of years old. But carbon dating is an inaccurate method for dating anything over a certain number of thousands of years old...

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

We obviously can not ignore the truth that the earth is an ancient world of about four billions years old or so with a very sad history. For the most part this world has been a desolate and barren waste land but the Bible indicates that it was not always such a desolate place. "In the Beginning" only accounts Recent earth history of man. But the earth, before the Garden of Eden and modern man, was a marvelous sight to behold. So much so that all the angels of God shouted for joy at the creation of it originally (Job 38:7).

I guess that part of the problem is when men of science do not follow the scientific method and present the true results of their findings as they discover them. Instead they play pick and choose what ever results best supports their theories at the time. This is why so many are confused and erroneously believe in theories such as evolution as the origin of species, because it's what they were taught to believe and can't admit that what they were taught was wrong. It's an insult to their intellect.

In a world where papers equal money and grants for furthering research, it's easy to lie to people so long as they get that government grant for writing their paper. After all if they get caught they can always just admit that they were wrong and science has been advance anyhow. And who really cares how many people falsely believe in all those theories and accept it as fact, any who?

[Swimmerdude99]

The truth of the matter is that creationists have there evidence that evolutionists won't listen to because they don't want to, and evolutionists have there evidence that creationists view as misrepresentations and don't want to listen to. Using "scientific" evidence will generally never work in person and even more rarely over the internet. Often the beliefs must first be founded by how the individual views the philosophy on life and WHY life exists and what life's purpose is. That is the core of why people believe what they believe in my opinion.

[Symmetry]

The truth of the matter is that creationists have there evidence that evolutionists won't listen to because they don't want to, and evolutionists have there evidence that creationists view as misrepresentations and don't want to listen to. Using "scientific" evidence will generally never work in person and even more rarely over the internet. Often the beliefs must first be founded by how the individual views the philosophy on life and WHY life exists and what life's purpose is. That is the core of why people believe what they believe in my opinion.

Just once more, with feeling, creationism and evolution aren't exclusive. They become exclusive when some types of creationists say that creationism is an alternative theory to evolution, with evidence they can barely provide, let alone back up.

"God did it" isn't science. Science isn't "God didn't do it".

[Viceroy63]

Well if evolutionist are correct then it is all just one big accident anyway. So where is their view of life in view of that?

[Symmetry]

Well if evolutionist are correct then it is all just one big accident anyway. So where is their view of life in view of that?

An accident? Sort of an odd way to put it. If you're interested in what evolutionary theory is about, I can recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

[Metsfanmax]

I agree that the earth is older than 6,000 years but I also believe that the Bible is accurate and truthful in it's account of the recent history of man. The origin of nations testify to this fact and there is even evidence of a recent world wide flood as well which every nation on the planet has an ancient account of. Here is a link if anyone is interested in learning more about this...

http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/

Basically when ocean floor and sea life is found atop the highest mountains in the world and it's the same thing and same kind in all the continents, how can you explain that except that the world was once covered with the Oceans.

We have an explanation for that, it's called plate tectonics.

[Viceroy63]

Well of course there is an explanation for that and the scientist who wrote that paper received a huge grant which he lived off from for years selling that "Explanation."

[Symmetry]

Well of course there is an explanation for that and the scientist who wrote that paper received a huge grant which he lived off from for years selling that "Explanation."

I'm a little unsure at this point what evolutionary theory you've actually read.

Edit- [Sorry- didn't realise that was for Mets]

[Metsfanmax]

Well of course there is an explanation for that and the scientist who wrote that paper received a huge grant which he lived off from for years selling that "Explanation."

Actually, the man who originally came up with the continental drift theory (Wegener) found his theory opposed for decades, and conferences were even organized specifically in opposition to the theory. If scientists are in it for the money, most of them are doing it wrong.

[Timminz]

Well if evolutionist are correct then it is all just one big accident anyway. So where is their view of life in view of that?

Well, certainly it isn't as comforting as believing in an omnipotent being who loves us and makes everything happen for a super-great reason, but it definitely ascribes a much more urgent and greater importance on this short life we live.

Also, Pat Robertson says that all you deniers should stop arguing with science because your families will leave you if you keep it up.

[Viceroy63]

Well, what does Pat Robertson know anyways? LOL.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm going to respond to the latest arguments by just giving links to the relevant talk:origins page. (yes all of them are so widely refuted that they can easily be addressed in this way)

The origin of nations testify to this fact and there is even evidence of a recent world wide flood as well which every nation on the planet has an ancient account of.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

Geological strata and their contained marine fossils provide critical evidence that the ocean once covered the continents, even the highest continental areas. Extremely widespread strata blankets argue for an intercontinental or global flood.

The Sauk Sequence extends throughout North America and appears to extend into Europe. The Tippecanoe Sequence also covers much of North America and may well extend into Europe and Africa. There are also intercontinental redbed sequences, intercontinental tuff beds, and coal-bearing strata cycles.

Granular, water-charged sediment flows result in very rapid stratification. Dilute flows produce thick sequences of plane beds, graded beds, and crossbeds by sustained unidirectional flow. Such flows also produce thick sequences of hummocky beds by sustained bidirectional flow.

Concentrated sediment flows produce thick strata sequences by abrupt deposition from liquefied suspension or evenly bedded strata by flow transformation to a tractive current.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD202.html

Basically when ocean floor and sea life is found atop the highest mountains in the world and it's the same thing and same kind in all the continents, how can you explain that except that the world was once covered with the Oceans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

A real "Water World." Then, when and as the waters receded, they caused certain scarring on the earth that could not have been done any other way. Does anyone really believe that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to make, with just a trickle of water from a tiny river???

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

Therefore if the Biblical flood is true then how can not the rest of the Bible be true as well?

Seriously?

Are you genuinely asking the question: "If this source has 1 true fact, how can it not all be true? " REALLY? I mean come on.
Sigh, fine, I'll answer. If Mein Kampf contains one true fact (I'm sure you could find a couple historical facts in there), then surely it must all be true ?!? Right ?!?

Many would argue that frozen mammoth and even certain species of supposedly extinct dinosaurs are millions of Years old according to carbon dating. In the case of the mammoth tens of thousands of years old. But carbon dating is an inaccurate method for dating anything over a certain number of thousands of years old...

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Wow that article is an amazing failure of basic logical thinking.
It goes like this:
1. Carbon dating isn't accurate for things older than 50k years (which is true and commonly accepted scientific fact btw)
2. Carbon dating on dinosaur fossils came out as them being 10k years old
3. This proves dinosaur fossils are 10 k years old.

Anyone spot any problems with that line of reasoning? No? Would it perhaps also mean that the fossils could be a million years old and that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate for those kinds of artifacts maybe?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html

Old fossils are dated from geological strata.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html

The rest of the post is just conspiracy theories about the evviiiiil scientists. As before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As before I am sure you will ignore my request to provide any.


I'm sure none of that will make you question your bullshit claims for a second though( cause it's all part of some conspiracy or something, right? ) Cling to that safety blanket Viceroy, the world is a scary place and we're all alone, so you just cling to it.

[Viceroy63]

Ask me a specific question and I will give you a specific answer. But don't ask me to try to explain all that BS because you can't see the evidence for a worldwide flood. Rest assure your arguments have hundreds of faults, but it's not my job to disclose them. That's not what I do with my days, nights and weekends.