Post Any Evidence For God Here

[jonesthecurl]

Well, I would say that you' d gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
But you were never sublime.
If you weren't trolling at first, you've obviously given up all attempt at rational argument now, and are searching the menu for the billy-goat of the day.
Bye now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Big,

You suggest we define evidence as something that furnishes proof? I can't even prove whether or not I was born in 1983 maybe.

If you lost your birth certificate, then I understand.

Records are helpful. Witnesses too. You know the doctor that signs his name affirming that you were born and what not?

____________________________
But, I see what you're getting at: what is truth? Because, surely, people's identities can be invented (much like God's--oops! Did I just say that?). So what's left? One can assert that God does exist because some people witnessed him or his works (crazy people that society deems as crazy, like Joan of Arc, or people who take something they saw as evidence of God---in other words, truth is subjective). Or, one can say that God doesn't exist; people have just invented him. But, I've already said all this. And once again, you're not getting anywhere closer.

So that's the second or third time I've repeated myself to you. So, thanks for wasting my time, please write something with a different approach, or let me know what you're not understanding.

[BigBallinStalin]

MeDeFe, this might be a bit more useful:

[Lionz]

There are records and witnesses that can be very useful perhaps...

There might be a birth certificate for me here. What does the word proof mean to you whether there is or not?

[Frigidus]

There are records and witnesses that can be very useful perhaps...

There might be a birth certificate for me here. What does the word proof mean to you whether there is or not?

A book supposedly written by guys we have never met who we know nothing about other than what is claimed in the book, and several unnamed witnesses who we never hear about again doesn't count as proof, for one.

[Lionz]

You make some misleading suggestions perhaps, but did I claim anything was proof of anything in here? What does the word proof mean to you?

[BigBallinStalin]

You make some misleading suggestions perhaps, but did I claim anything was proof of anything in here? What does the word proof mean to you?

It means a lot me.

[Lionz]

How do you define the word proof if you define it somehow?

[Frigidus]

Proof: A measure of how much alcohol (i.e., ethanol) is contained in an alcoholic beverage

[Lionz]

Can you elaborate? Nevermind.

[Frigidus]

History

In the 18th century and until 1 January 1980, Britain defined alcohol content in terms of “proof spirit,” which was defined as the most dilute spirit that would sustain combustion of gunpowder.[1] The term originated in the 18th century, when payments to British sailors included rations of rum. To ensure that the rum had not been watered down, the test or "proof" was by dousing gunpowder in it, then testing to see if the gunpowder would ignite. If it did not burn, the rum contained too much water and was considered to be “under proof.” A proven sample of rum was defined to be 100 degrees proof; this was later found to occur at 57.15% alcohol by volume, which is very close to a 4:7 ratio of alcohol to total amount of liquid. Thus, the definition amounted to declaring that (4÷7) × 175 = 100 degrees proof spirit. The 175 is not an arbitrary figure, it is (7÷4) × 100, and is the multiplier for which the lowest concentration of alcohol is 100 when a sample just meets a standardised gunpowder test. It should be noted that the term "rum" from the era of sailing was a generic term for many kinds of alcoholic beverages. Anything over 100 is "overproof".

From this it followed that pure, 100% alcohol had (7÷7) × 175 = 175 degrees proof spirit, and that 50% ABV had (3.5÷7) × 175 = 87.5 proof spirit, sometimes called degrees proof spirit. To convert percentage of alcohol by volume to proof spirit, multiply the percentage by 1.75.

In the United Kingdom, the proof-to-ABV ratio is 7:4. In the United States, it is 2:1.

The use of 'proof' as a measure of alcohol is now mostly historical, and alcohol is sold labelled with its alcohol content measured as a percentage of alcohol by volume (ABV). Many countries also indicate the impact of the contents of a container of an alcoholic beverage against a measure of standard drinks. In Australia a standard drink contains 10g or 12.67ml of alcohol, which is close to the amount that the average liver can metabolise in one hour, allowing the consumer to keep account of their blood alcohol level.

From the 1740s until 1816, Customs and Excise and London brewers and distillers used Clarke’s hydrometer to measure degrees proof. Under the Hydrometer Act of 1818, the Sikes hydrometer was used to measure proof; it remained in use until 1980. The Customs and Excise Act of 1952 defined “spirits of proof strength” (i.e., proof spirits):

“Spirits shall be deemed to be at proof if the volume of the ethyl alcohol contained therein made up to the volume of the spirits with distilled water has a weight equal to that of twelve-thirteenths of a volume of distilled water equal to the volume of the spirits, the volume of each liquid being computed as at fifty-one degrees Fahrenheit.”

[BigBallinStalin]

Any more bullshit, Lionz?

[stahrgazer]

How did they know what? Someone wrote a vague statement, even an educated guess, and then someone later (10 years ago) write a short paragraph on his interpretation of the vague statement.

And you're only looking at a group of statements. How many of those are wrong? And in what context were those statements written? For all you know, they could've been discussing the contents inside a jar or wondering when James is going to stop fucking around in the sea with his nets and actually bring in some fish this time...

On this, we can agree... which is why you won't see me using 'scripture' as proof of anything but that someone somewhen thought it was a good idea to write their version of Aesop's fables. But, just because I don't believe "the bible" (pick a version, any version) or "the scriptures" (pick some, any, those published, those unpublished - aka censored out - those yet to be found, and those forever lost from decay) are "the word of God" doesn't mean that I don't believe there's some essence/lifeforce/universal energy/supernatural/divine something that's beyond the grasp of current human understanding that is a thread uniting and empowering those who know how to tap into it...and if ppl want to name that "God" I have no beef with it.

So for proof that "God" exists I just have to look at nature...at life..at love.. heck, feel an orgasm (oh, god, oh god yes ) and know "there's something bigger than me out there." And I truly believe that those who claim not to understand that, are just hung up on someone else's ideas of how that "something bigger than me out there" looks or manifests.

[Army of GOD]

The Lionz style of arguing is epic.

[Neoteny]

Neo,

GT guy? : )

No, I'm a Michigan fan, but I don't have much love for UGA, especially under Richt.

What would lightning or geothermal energy have to do with earth getting a gain in usable energy from an external source?

They serve as alternatives until the external source can be harnessed.

Would all life that has Ever existed all sharing one ancestor not naturally mean that life hasn't come from non-life more than once in the past?

No. The other occurrences could have failed on their own or been out-competed by other families of organisms. I'd say they probably did not coexist though.

Is there a production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere that's been constant for millions of years regardless of what is and is not happening now?

I doubt it because the production rate is based on the sun, and the sun is rarely constant for too long.

You yourself figure it is not to be assumed that creation of carbon-14 will be constant maybe. Have fossils of trees not been found on Antartica? What if there was a water canopy around earth that no longer exists?

Well, there are all kinds of fossils on Antarctica because, according to current tectonic theory, Antarctica wasn't always at the south pole. I think it was even up at the equator at some point. It depends on what you mean by "water canopy," but if you mean literally a shit-ton of water, then that is not feasible.

What is meant by calibration of texts if you said that?

For example, there might be a text that says "this is written in 1000 AD and this boat was made in this same year) and then we date the boat (or the text) and see what comes up. Usually the dating is pretty accurate.

There's evidence that suggests Charles Lyell was not the biggest fan of religion ever and we can read stuff at least subtly attacking religion even in a book written by him that's called Principles of Geology maybe.

Lyell may not have been a fan of religion, and neither is Richard Dawkins, but we don't use that to judge their science.

Did individuals not give layers a name and an age and one or more index fossil and are index fossils not used to determine layers? Maybe society in general has one or more incorrect understanding about the so called geologic column and there is limestone and shale and sandstone found at various layers in the earth. Would dating stata by fossils and fossils by strata not be a prime example of circular reasoning?

Dating by strata stood on its own before dating by fossils. The logic that strata lay down over one another (if you have a layer of coal this big over a layer of granite this big and a layer of mica this big, and you see the same thing over this way, it can be assumed that the bottom stuff is older, and they layers were laid down at the same time in those different places. Dating by fossils within strata helped to globalize the strata dating (if you find the same fossils in this coal that you found over there, it's likely that they are from the same time period), and then radiometric dating has confirmed the accuracy of both types of dating, as well as correcting some things that were not accurate. Once all this data has been mutually buttressed, you can use one or two to confirm the other. They might be assumptions, but they're based on common knowledge.

How does dendrochronology back up the carbon-14 method if it does somehow?

The same way radiometric dating backs up stratigraphic dating. In a very simple sense, you can count tree rings (in one or many trees) to find the age of a tree, and then use Carbon 14 and you will get similar results.

Want to discuss uranium-lead radiometric dating? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=90

There's a technique called isochron dating which allows you to actually determine how much of the parent isotope existed at formation of rocks. Additionally, rocks are fairly closed systems (if not the ones exposed to water and other elements, there are always rocks that are free from such things). Also, isochron methods can correct for such things, but I'm a bit out of my depth of field here to explain it very well.

Is there no geologic evidence for an earthwide flood? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2

None of that is geologic evidence for a flood.

[jonesthecurl]

The Lionz style of arguing is epic.

What you mean by epic? proof there is perhaps? The Force is strong with this one.

[notyou2]

NY2,

How many wrote the Quran? One individual? How many wrote the so called OT and NT? Forty plus?

What difference does it make? What does it prove? Do you live in a bubble?

[daddy1gringo]

... just because I don't believe "the bible".. or "the scriptures" ... are "the word of God" doesn't mean that I don't believe there's some essence/lifeforce/universal energy/supernatural/divine something that's beyond the grasp of current human understanding that is a thread uniting and empowering those who know how to tap into it...and if ppl want to name that "God" I have no beef with it.

So for proof that "God" exists I just have to look at nature...at life..at love.. heck, feel an orgasm (oh, god, oh god yes ) and know "there's something bigger than me out there." And I truly believe that those who claim not to understand that, are just hung up on someone else's ideas of how that "something bigger than me out there" looks or manifests.

Fair enough. Let's deal with that. As I've said before, logic, facts, science, intellect in general, are inconclusive on this subject. You can't prove that God either does or does not exist. At that point you can go in several directions.

Often people choose not to believe, on the premise that the burden of proof is on the "God exists" side, but that is not dictated by logic; it is a preference, and a prejudice. Sometimes they appeal to "Occam's razor", but first of all, that is also not a dictate of logic, but a rule of thumb: someone's idea of how to deal with uncertainty. Second, it is not a given that the existence of God poses any more questions than the alternative.

I think a more fair way to look at it is that when logic proves inconclusive, one must seek another source of "knowing" to answer his question. I like what Ghandi, who as far as I know was not an ignorant, Bible-thumping fundamentalist, said on this: Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWr04MB ... re=related

After that, if one comes to the conclusion that some sort of "God" exists, that' is where logic and factual investigation come in to determine if this being has manifested and expressed him/her/it-self more clearly, more specifically, and if so, how.

Was going to say more, but it's late. Anyway, this might be a good spot to stop for feedback.

[nietzsche]

you guys give me a headache

[BigBallinStalin]

How did they know what? Someone wrote a vague statement, even an educated guess, and then someone later (10 years ago) write a short paragraph on his interpretation of the vague statement.

And you're only looking at a group of statements. How many of those are wrong? And in what context were those statements written? For all you know, they could've been discussing the contents inside a jar or wondering when James is going to stop fucking around in the sea with his nets and actually bring in some fish this time...

On this, we can agree... which is why you won't see me using 'scripture' as proof of anything but that someone somewhen thought it was a good idea to write their version of Aesop's fables. But, just because I don't believe "the bible" (pick a version, any version) or "the scriptures" (pick some, any, those published, those unpublished - aka censored out - those yet to be found, and those forever lost from decay) are "the word of God" doesn't mean that I don't believe there's some essence/lifeforce/universal energy/supernatural/divine something that's beyond the grasp of current human understanding that is a thread uniting and empowering those who know how to tap into it...and if ppl want to name that "God" I have no beef with it.

So for proof that "God" exists I just have to look at nature...at life..at love.. heck, feel an orgasm (oh, god, oh god yes ) and know "there's something bigger than me out there." And I truly believe that those who claim not to understand that, are just hung up on someone else's ideas of how that "something bigger than me out there" looks or manifests.

It doesn't prove that God exists or doesn't exist. You determine the truth to suit your own views. It's all up to you, and arguing on this matter doesn't get anywhere.

As far as essence, lifefoce, universal energy is concerned, well that's something altogether different. That's reminds me of the healing power of our minds as seen through Reiki, or Taiqi, and what not.

[Snorri1234]

Often people choose not to believe, on the premise that the burden of proof is on the "God exists" side, but that is not dictated by logic; it is a preference, and a prejudice.

No it's dictated by reason.

[Lionz]

Jones,

I have ocd combined with a major fear of lying maybe. And what do I really know?

Stahr,

Do you say the word someone like one person wrote the so called OT and NT? What's intended to be a fable?

Neoteny,

Did life arise from non-life on earth with no usable external energy added to earth?

Would all life that has ever existed not include life that has died out in the past? Do you theorize that life has arisen from non-life more than once and yet theorize that there happens to be nothing alive right now that does not share common ancestory?

If we don't know what has happened in the past in regards how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere, then how useful is the carbon-14 method?

What would not be feasible? Would a solid or non-solid canopy of H2O around the earth not have it's own gravitational field that would help keep it suspended?

Do you have a source that compares carbon-14 dates with texts and tree rings? Whether or not there are preflood things and postflood things and the former are much harder to date?

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

Does uranium not decay and produce helium-4 as a by-product? Should there not be more helium-4 on earth if earth is billions of years old?

What if a diamond filled earth was created from nothing and Adam had pubic hair as a one year old? If someone is trying to determine whether or not earth and living organisms were created, should they assume that earth and living organisms were not?

There is one or more section concering Isochron Dating here that you should check out maybe... http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ting-prove

Did Charles Lyell not invent the geologic column? And when has depth of earth been used to date a fossil?

Rocks by Fossils or Fossils by Rocks?

So, let’s see what the evolutionists say about this circular reasoning in the textbooks. Do they really use the fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils? Well, here’s Glenco Biology. On page 306 they date the rocks by the fossils. On the very next page, page 307 they are dating the fossils by the rocks. Circular reasoning right in the text book. "The intelligent layman has long suspected the use of circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." (J.E. O’Rourke) "Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the nineteenth century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very modern examples, which really are archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." (Derek Ager) Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case. "Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from." Quote goes on. "And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record." That’s Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows it’s circular reasoning.
How about this: "The rocks do date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." (Figure that one out) "Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (J.E. O’Rourke) They have to use circular reasoning. "The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the concern of the public (In other words, it is none of your business) or…it can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice…. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning." (J.E. O’Rourke) Don’t tell me that you know the age of those rocks or those fossils because they are both based upon each other. It’s all based on circular reasoning. "…evolution is documented by geology, and… geology is documented by evolution." (Larry Azar) Figure that one out, would you please. It’s all based on circular reasoning. It cannot be denied. "…from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists here are arguing in a circle." (R.H. Rastall) They date the rocks by the organisms they contain and the organisms by the rocks they are found in. Folks, it’s all based on circular reasoning.
I like to show evolutionists the geologic column, and I ask them this question: "now, fellows," I’ll say, "you’ve got limestone scattered all throughout this geologic column. I mean there is limestone and shale and sandstone and conglomerate and limestone and sandstone and limestone and shale. And I say, "How do you tell the difference? If I hand you a piece of limestone, how would you tell the difference between 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone? I mean, how would you know how old it is?" There is only one way they can tell the difference: that is by the index fossils. It’s all based on that. "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (J.E. O’Rourke) They don’t date them by carbon dating folks; it’s all based on fossils.

How many posts did you look at here? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2

What if multiple layers of strata were formed as a result of particles suspended in flood water?



Are there not polystrate fossils scattered across the earth that traverse multiple layers of strata and suggest that's the case?







And are fossils themselves not actually clear cut evidence for a global flood?



Have fish been buried while giving birth and eating?









NY2,

Would there be no difference in one individual writing a religious text and forty plus individuals writing a body of religious texts over hundreds and hundreds of years?

NOTE: I've come across formatting issues and images are left out of a quote in here and I'm misquoting in here for all I know maybe. Also, I have posted and will be posting images including words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

[AAFitz]

Ok, no time to go through all of this, but here's just a couple of points.

There is no difference between a fossil of a fish, and a fossil of a fish with a fish in its mouth. Billions of fish died. Its reasonable to assume some died with a fish in their mouth. Hell, one could even assume they are more likely to die in the process of hunting, eating and swallowing. Either way, to suggest that a fish happened to die while eating and happened to get fossilized as some kind of impossible event, is just pointless. Interesting to see, but fully expected statistically speaking.

Also, helium can actually escape earths atmosphere. Its lack of presence is hardly proof that the earth is not millions of years old.

[Lionz]

Have fish fossilized above ground with fish in their mouths?

Also, there's a level of helium-4 on earth that does not back up earth being millions and millions of years old even if we take atmospheric escape taken into account perhaps. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp

[Lionz]

What if He is real and loves you and misses you?