Post Any Evidence For God Here

[tzor]

White men KILLED polytheism in america. That biased my actual posture about religion: ATHEIST.

They did? The Iriquois nation was effectively monotheistic with the worship of the Great Spirit "Ha-wen-ne-yu."

Note they were not converted by the "sword" but by French fur traders. Once the expanding colonial English Protestants realized that the natives were not hethens to be converted but damn Papists, their attitude changed to outright hostility towards them.

The Mayans did worship a pantheon of nature gods, and each god have a good and a bad side. Yet there was clearly one creator god Itzamná, (fire) followed by the feathered serpent Kukulcán. A lot of Mayan religious practice got melded into the local Catholic culture.

The Aztec can best be described as Pokemon Polytheism (got to collect them all). Here is what wiki says about them, "Aztec religion is a Mesoamerican religion combining elements of polytheism, shamanism and animism within a framework of astronomy and calendrics. Like other Mesoamerican religions, it had elements of human sacrifice in connection with a large number of religious festivals which were held according to patterns of the Aztec calendar. It had a large and ever increasing pantheon; the Aztecs would often adopt deities of other geographic regions or peoples into their own religious practice. Aztec cosmology divided the world into upper and nether-worlds, each associated with a specific set of deities and astronomical objects. Important in Aztec religion were the sun, moon and the planet Venus--all of which held different symbolic and religious meanings and were connected to deities and geographical places. Large parts of the Aztec pantheon were inherited from previous Mesoamerican civilizations and others, such as Tlaloc, Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, were venerated by different names in most cultures throughout the history of Mesoamerica. For the Aztecs especially important deities were Tlaloc the god of rain, Huitzilopochtli the patron god of the Mexica tribe, Quetzalcoatl the culture hero and god of civilization and order, and Tezcatlipoca the god of destiny and fortune, connected with war and sorcery. Each of these gods had their own temples within the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan--Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli were both worshipped at the Templo Mayor. A common Aztec religious practice was the recreation of the divine: Mythological events would be ritually recreated and living persons would impersonate specific deities and be revered as a god--and often ritually sacrificed."

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

What would sunlight coming down and striking a planet without something able to harness energy from sunlight on it do to help entropy decrease on it?

Nothing, until something develops the ability to harness it. I'm not saying sunlight is the initial cause for the decrease in entropy, it's just the main one that explains the majority of the local decrease (and net increase in our system) in entropy.

Does sunlight not actually help break stuff down? There was quite a bit of energy added to Hiroshimo on August 6th of 1945 perhaps.

UV can damage DNA and fade pigments and all that, but it doesn't really break stuff down. Sun shines on grass all day and it doesn't really fall apart.

What suggests to you that earth currently has a population of living organisms who all share common ancestory with one another, if something does?

Genetics represent the primary evidence I'm familiar with as far as commonality of organisms. The universality of DNA, as well as things like shared synteny and homeobox genes and functional complementation of genes heavily imply shared ancestry. On a broader note, microevolution implies macroevolution, which is kinda what Darwin finally recognized.

What has the carbon-14 method actually been calibrated with? Other methods that are derived from faulty assumptions having to do with believing earth is billions of years old? We might be able to use tree rings to help us get a good idea about how long trees have grown, but what do tree rings tell us about when trees have lived and died?

Tree rings are cool in that you can compare rings from two different trees to count back through time. This is done because every year trees add a ring, and the size of the ring depends on how fast the tree grew (which is influence by things like amount of precipitation). These different trees can be matched up using these different sizes. For example, if you cut down a tree that's alive today and it gives you the following ring structure:

||| | | |||| | | |||
                            ^last year

Imagine that makes a circle. Next you find a tree that's dead and see what it's rings look like. Maybe something like this:

||| | | | |||| | | |||

You can then take those trees and match up the rings based on these years of differential growth.

                ||| | | |||| | | |||
||| | | | |||| | | |||           ^last year
 ^20 years ago   ^10 years ago      

That is dendrochronology, and it is based on common sense, not thought about the age of the earth. If you use that to go back far enough, you get a tree old enough to be dated by C14 (you can use other isotopes for more recent things), and if you date it using C14, you get a number very close to the correct date. It is not one assumption (billions of years old earth) holding up these disparate ideas, these are all simple facts that mutually support each other.

What if Adam did have pubic hair as a one year old?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you making fun of my name?

You might consider stones themselves to be evidence for earth being billions of years old, but who theorizes that He created earth without stone in it?

This is important. You see the stones, and since you have the notion that a god is the cause, you automatically assume god did it. Scientists look at the stones and wonder if there is a different theory that fits the data. There is, and it fits a lot of data other than just the age of stones.

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

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... elium.html

Helium-4 is the product of radioactive alpha decay whereas Helium-3 is primordial. The rates of their "production" are simply the rates of their escape from within the earth to the atmosphere.

A fair amount of helium is lost from the earth's atmosphere by simply being heated up in the elevated temperature of the exosphere (Dalrymple, 1984, p.112). The exosphere is the outermost layer of our atmosphere, beginning after the ionosphere at about 300 miles above the earth. When a lightweight helium atom is heated up, especially Helium-3, which is even lighter than Helium-4, it can easily pick up enough speed to escape Earth's gravity altogether and head off into outer space. Heating gas is a little like swatting rubber balls with a paddle; the lighter balls travel a lot faster after being swatted. In this manner about half of the Helium-3 produced is lost to outer space. The amount of the heavier Helium-4 lost by this method appears to be far short of the amount produced. Hence, the point of Morris' argument which is based on calculations by Cook. However, there are other mechanisms of helium escape which Morris and Cook have overlooked. Creationist Larry Vardiman (ICR Impact series, No.143, May 1985) at least recognizes some of these other factors. However, he has not fully addressed the matter, let alone proven that the earth is young.

The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ±1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magneticfield intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.

(Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)

Dr. Dalrymple goes on to explain that even though our understanding of the helium balance in the atmosphere is incomplete, the situation being very complicated because of various hardtocalculate factors, we do know one thing. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113)

Thus, the helium balance calculations provided by creationist Melvin Cook (which are used by Henry Morris) cannot provide a reliable minimum estimate of the earth's age. Their argument is a fatal oversimplification of a complex problem.

What do you know about the Mysner Effect? And what would a six inch layer of ice around earth do?

The Bible says there used to be water above the firmament. Water or ice, it might have been ice because ice at low temperatures becomes magnetic and you can actually suspend it in the magnetic field of the earth. It is called the Mysner Effect.
Ice Canopy?
Have you ever seen a magnet floating on top of another magnet? That is called the Mysner Effect. If ice was up there, say 10 miles up, 6 inches of ice just to pick a number, that super cold ice suspended by the magnetic field would increase air pressure on the earth and would filter out the sunlight. See, water stops a lot of the damaging effects of the sunlight; it would make the whole earth like a big greenhouse. How many know what a greenhouse is? They have got all glass walls; you have to dress in the basement in a greenhouse. Well, apparently the whole earth used to be that way.
Matter of fact, scientists just recently discovered there is still lots of water out there in space; enormous amounts of water, and water is an amazing molecule by the way. One of the only substances that as it freezes, it expands instead of shrinks, boy it is a good thing because the water freezing and expanding makes it float on top of water otherwise the lakes would freeze from the bottom up--make it pretty tough on the fish would it not? Pretty neat the way that works, the rest of them shrink and sink when they freeze, not water, amazing substance! Moody Science films has a great video just on water, it is called "Water, Water Everywhere", tremendous video from Moody Bible Institute.

What Good is a Water Vapor Canopy?
There is a new theory about the dinosaurs that I think ties in with what the Bible says about the original creation. See, scientists are kind of confused about dinosaurs, they have two serious problems. In 1993, all the dinosaur experts got together in Chicago and they said folks, we have got a problem, dinosaur lungs are too small they could not breathe plus their nostrils are too small. An 80-foot Apatosaurus, this article says, had nostrils the same size as a horse. How is an 80-foot animal going to get enough air through nostrils the same size as a horse? He would be sucking so hard trying to get a breath, it would set him on fire from all the friction from the wind whistling in there! Couldn’t breathe! Well, apparently, they did breathe, we find their bones all over the place. How could he breathe?

Double Atmospheric Pressure
Well, today an eighty footer could not breathe, but before the Flood, I think they had double the air pressure from that canopy of water or ice over head-increase the air pressure. Plus, when they drilled into the amber (how many saw Jurassic Park when they went after the mosquito blood?), sometimes in amber they find air bubbles trapped. The air bubbles trapped in amber have 50% more oxygen than we do today. Interesting! Did you know if you lived in a world with double the air pressure and 50% more oxygen, just breathing would be exciting! Adam would go,
"(breathe) Wow! Eve, that was fun, let’s do that again, ready?" Because under those conditions, not only does your hemoglobin take on oxygen, your plasma gets oxygen saturated in your blood stream which means you could run for hundreds of miles without getting tired. Adam and Eve did not need a car; they could run to Grandma’s! Only they did not have a grandma, or a mother-in-law by the way, which was why it was paradise! No, actually my wife has a great mother-in-law, but!
I think before the Flood came the earth had double the air pressure and increased oxygen. That explains how the dinosaurs could get so big on small lungs.

6 inches of water is not very impressive. Even if you account for the distance around the outside of the earth, you would only be getting a few feet of floodwater. Not enough to cover most mountains. In order to have enough water to cover the earth, there would have to be so much water around the earth that it would block out the sun. And then, when it came down, it would pressure cook us.

What has actually been used to date strata not counting fossils themselves?

It's common sense that strata are laid down newer on top of older. That is a very basic method of dating. Radiometric dating (which has been confirmed by dating things of known age like trees and texts and such) has confirmed the accuracy of stratigraphic dating.

Did you not say None of that is geological evidence for a flood referring to stuff here earlier... http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2 ...? Now you claim that you did not look at many posts there?

Nothing that you posted on this site was geologic evidence for a flood. I'm not going to sift through pages of your random images and reply to every one. If you have something you want to talk about it, do so here. I don't want to guess at what you want me to discuss.

How common is it for you to conclude there is no evidence for something somewhere without thoroughly examining it?

Give me a break. You haven't examined anything I've said. You just post links to what other people have written. I've looked at your arguments and tried to explain things to you. I've seen evidence. I've dug through rock. I've pulled the fossils out of the earth with my own hands. I've measured the stratigraphy. You have read the Bible and listened to preachers. You have no evidence. You have rhetoric and presumptions.

Does this show different layers of strata thousands of years apart?

No, it shows a few floods over the life and death of a tree.

What if things called fountains of the great deep were broken up and water came from inside the earth?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

You can't even decide where you want your floodwaters to come from now? Water from inside the earth would be extremely hot (like hot springs, pressure is serious business) and would have boiled Noah and those poor animals alive. Plus, events like that leave very specific geological markers which we do not see.

There were underwater landslides that buried many things including fish perhaps. Water has not come from just anywhere and trees have not grown just anywhere and we should not expect for standing trees to have been buried by sediment just anywhere maybe, but have polystrate fossils not been found scattered in several places on earth?

Tectonic theory explains why those places have been underwater. Our earth has gone through many significant changes. It's not surprising that we would find remnants of ancient oceans. Water does come from oceans, so that's convenient. Also, we have found "polystrate" (not an actual geologic term) fossils all over the place. Why wouldn't we. Trees grow all over the place, and floods happen all over the place.

[Lionz]

Neo,

Would something developing the ability to harness sunlight itself not be an example of a decrease in entropy? You got theories concerning where energy has come from?

Look, this percentage of DNA sequencing is pure propaganda. It’s bologna! It doesn’t mean a thing! And the evolutionists understand that. We have no direct access to the process of evolution. It’s only by creative imagination that you can come up with this. They had just imagined it. They tell the kids in school that the human and the orangutans are 96% similar in their DNA structure. "And this, boys and girls, proves they had a common ancestor 15 million years ago." Now, just hold on a minute. That does not prove any such thing! It might prove that they have a common Designer. Similar DNA codes prove the same Engineer wrote the codes. I bet I could point out that most of the stuff coming out of Microsoft has some similarities. Most of their programs are similar. That doesn’t prove they all evolved from Morse code! The same guys are writing the programs. That’s what’s going on! And there are thousands and thousands of differences between chimpanzees or apes and humans. Yet they point out the one similarity, the 99% similarity of DNA, and think that is somehow proof. But they overlook millions of other things. Monkeys cannot touch all of their fingers to their thumb. Monkeys are missing a whole section of the brain called Broca’s Convolution. Monkeys can hang upside down with their feet on a tree branch—their big toe on one side and their other toe on the other side. Try that some time! Pick a low tree branch, I would recommend. I mean there are thousands and thousands of differences. The body covering is different—the hair, of course, and its distribution across the body. There are thousands of differences. But they think there are similarities with the DNA code and so that’s the one they point to the students and say, "See, this proves evolution!"
Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that’s supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrome c is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other.

What's the farthest anyone has claimed to have gone back comparing rings in trees?

There are some things here that we should consider maybe...







Does scripture not suggest the was a global flood about 4,300 years ago? Hmm...

Note: Two of those are things uploaded onto tinypic by me and all three do not include words of me depending on definition at least and some or all do not refer to the present maybe.

You got a name of Adam? I've tried to make one or more point having to do with assumptions perhaps. You might come into a room and find an hourglass on a table that has more sand in a lower section and less sand in a higher section and conclude that someone flipped it more than thirty minutes beforehand, but what if I was to create an hourglass from nothing and I created it with some sand already in a lower section? Was Adam ever an infant? Has earth ever existed without diamond in it? Who knows and who knows?

What has shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4? And what has suggested that solar wind has helped remove helium-4 during geomagnetic-field reversals? What if earth is simply not millions and millions of years old?

I'm not meaning to say that the flood was simply caused by a six inch layer of ice collapsing and have never meant to say that at any point in the past perhaps.

What has been used to date strata in a more than this is older than that type sense? Be specific if you are going to refer to a radiometric dating technique maybe.

Have you looked at everything here? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2 If not, do you know if I posted geologic evidence for a flood there?

I just post links to what other people have written? I'm not sure if I've stepped into a church building ten times ever and you have wrong assumptions about me maybe.

Shows a few floods? Does this or does this not show strata thousands and thousands of years apart?



Do you figure a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical Unless there happens to be a fossil running through? And polystrate is not an actual geologic term according to what? Infidels.org?

There might very well have been creatures boiled alive, but Noah came to rest next to Ararat and you should keep this in mind maybe...

The research team surveyed the volcanically active Yellowstone region, home to 80 percent of the world's geysers and half of its geothermal features.

There are geologic markers for massive flooding out west that you have not considered as such in the past possibly.

How about check out at least two posts even if it is mainly just to see images? Addresses for two individual blog posts with images you should check out here maybe...

http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=13
http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=14

There's an initial post found here that has one or more disclaimer referring to those and more perhaps...

http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... hp?t=64447

Note: I have come across formatting issues and one or more image did not show up in a quote in here and there's one or more misquote in here for all I know maybe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is it just me or does Lionz tend to keep repeating the same questions while just rewording them differently?

[Neoteny]

Is it just me or does Lionz tend to keep repeating the same questions while just rewording them differently?

Yes, but I feel like I'm in a battle of wills now, and I am a petty bastard.

Neo,

Would something developing the ability to harness sunlight itself not be an example of a decrease in entropy? You got theories concerning where energy has come from?

Yes, and that decrease in entropy comes from energy other than sunlight, such as geothermal and chemical energy. Those are my theories.

Look, this percentage of DNA sequencing is pure propaganda. It’s bologna! It doesn’t mean a thing! And the evolutionists understand that. We have no direct access to the process of evolution. It’s only by creative imagination that you can come up with this. They had just imagined it. They tell the kids in school that the human and the orangutans are 96% similar in their DNA structure. "And this, boys and girls, proves they had a common ancestor 15 million years ago." Now, just hold on a minute. That does not prove any such thing! It might prove that they have a common Designer. Similar DNA codes prove the same Engineer wrote the codes. I bet I could point out that most of the stuff coming out of Microsoft has some similarities. Most of their programs are similar. That doesn’t prove they all evolved from Morse code! The same guys are writing the programs. That’s what’s going on! And there are thousands and thousands of differences between chimpanzees or apes and humans. Yet they point out the one similarity, the 99% similarity of DNA, and think that is somehow proof. But they overlook millions of other things. Monkeys cannot touch all of their fingers to their thumb. Monkeys are missing a whole section of the brain called Broca’s Convolution. Monkeys can hang upside down with their feet on a tree branch—their big toe on one side and their other toe on the other side. Try that some time! Pick a low tree branch, I would recommend. I mean there are thousands and thousands of differences. The body covering is different—the hair, of course, and its distribution across the body. There are thousands of differences. But they think there are similarities with the DNA code and so that’s the one they point to the students and say, "See, this proves evolution!"
Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that’s supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrome c is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other.

That was a silly rant. It seems the whole time the author is on the verge of actually understanding behind the idea of common ancestry, and then wails off on something else.

What's the farthest anyone has claimed to have gone back comparing rings in trees?

I dunno.

There are some things here that we should consider maybe...







Does scripture not suggest the was a global flood about 4,300 years ago? Hmm...

That tree is probably closer to 5000 years old. Anyway, how were all those things dated? Plus, this tree (or set of trees) is about 80,000 years old. How does this affect your coincidences there (I'm assuming they're legit)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_%28Quaking_Aspen%29

Note: Two of those are things uploaded onto tinypic by me and all three do not include words of me depending on definition at least and some or all do not refer to the present maybe.

You got a name of Adam? I've tried to make one or more point having to do with assumptions perhaps. You might come into a room and find an hourglass on a table that has more sand in a lower section and less sand in a higher section and conclude that someone flipped it more than thirty minutes beforehand, but what if I was to create an hourglass from nothing and I created it with some sand already in a lower section? Was Adam ever an infant? Has earth ever existed without diamond in it? Who knows and who knows?

My name is Neoteny. Why are unicorns hollow? Not all questions are valid questions. Did Adam ever exist? I can tell you the answer to that one.

What has shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4? And what has suggested that solar wind has helped remove helium-4 during geomagnetic-field reversals? What if earth is simply not millions and millions of years old?

I don't have access to Dalrymple's actual paper so I can't really answer those questions. Like I've said previously, this is not really my field. These are questions that people have considered and have answers to. I'm just not one of them. The evidence still points to a billions of years old earth.

I'm not meaning to say that the flood was simply caused by a six inch layer of ice collapsing and have never meant to say that at any point in the past perhaps.

Of course it was implied. If it was not, what was the point of bringing it up?

What has been used to date strata in a more than this is older than that type sense? Be specific if you are going to refer to a radiometric dating technique maybe.

All radiometric techniques are applicable. Biostratigraphy can compare different areas. Magnetostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy might also be pertinent.

Have you looked at everything here? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2 If not, do you know if I posted geologic evidence for a flood there?

All of that can be explained by alternate theories that fit the data better than a worldwide flood. For example, the Grand Canyon was, seriously, cut by the Colorado River. For real.

I just post links to what other people have written? I'm not sure if I've stepped into a church building ten times ever and you have wrong assumptions about me maybe.

No, seriously, that's the majority of what you've done. You have asked quite a few questions, but as far as posting any real evidence (other than pictures of random places on earth) you have mostly posted other people's arguments, about radiometric dating for example, rather than try to explain them in your own words. Just saying.

Shows a few floods? Does this or does this not show strata thousands and thousands of years apart?

A cm per 1000 years is an overall average. Local conditions can vary widely, so, yes, that looks like a few floods to me. Anyhow, if you believed that number, there would only be 4-6 cm of sediment on earth.

Do you figure a rate of one centimeter per 1000 years is typical Unless there happens to be a fossil running through? And polystrate is not an actual geologic term according to what? Infidels.org?

No. 1 cm per 1000 years is average, not typical. There is a difference. Polystrate is not an actual geologic term according to my geology textbooks. Also, wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

There might very well have been creatures boiled alive, but Noah came to rest next to Ararat and you should keep this in mind maybe...

Put your hand over a pot of boiling water (not touching, but almost) and see how long you think Noah could survive there.

The research team surveyed the volcanically active Yellowstone region, home to 80 percent of the world's geysers and half of its geothermal features.

There are geologic markers for massive flooding out west that you have not considered as such in the past possibly.

Perhaps not individually, but if they were that obviously related to a global flood, I'm sure that would have come up in my studies.

How about check out at least two posts even if it is mainly just to see images? Addresses for two individual blog posts with images you should check out here maybe...

http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=13
http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=14

There's an initial post found here that has one or more disclaimer referring to those and more perhaps...

http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... hp?t=64447

Note: I have come across formatting issues and one or more image did not show up in a quote in here and there's one or more misquote in here for all I know maybe.

I'm out of time for now. Perhaps I'll check those last few posts out later.

[jonesthecurl]

Is it just me or does Lionz tend to keep repeating the same questions while just rewording them differently?

Is it merely BBS, or does that other guy keep restating the same queries with little other change?

[notyou2]

Apparently he is debating in his head and trying to inundate his psyche with this mantra

[MeDeFe]

Lionz is a troll.

I'm drunk, but my opinion is valid!(exclamation mark)

[Neoteny]

Lionz is a troll.

I'm drunk, but my opinion is valid!(exclamation mark)

Yes and yes.

[notyou2]

This post by a2jay proves evolution

[daddy1gringo]

Yes and thus we can say that it is far more reasonable to not believe in whatever flavour of bearded skyman you happen to believe in.

Thank you for illustrating my point:

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.

As well as being just your prejudice, it's also a straw-man. "God = ridiculous caricature of God. Therefore improbability of ridiculous caricature = improbability of God."

It's like you guys don't understand how language works. Or logic. Or reason.

You hide behind "Hey looks you can't disprove god!" yet aren't willing to accept the consequences of that stance. You refuse to admit that by the logic you're using your particular god or gods can be considered to be equal to Santa and the easter bunny and invisible pink unicorns. And you do this because of your emotional attachment to your particular flavour, not because it is reasonable to do.

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree completely. That’s exactly what I just said. Look again.

I like what Ghandi, who as far as I know was not an ignorant, Bible-thumping fundamentalist, {edit: nor was he talking about a "bearded skyman"} 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 specifically, and if so, how.

Like I said, what I was talking about here is just coming to the conviction that there is "something". And yes, at that point, the "something" could be the easter bunny or thor or thetans or whatever. This is a complex issue and you have to take it logically step by step. Otherwise, what happens is a kind of ground-shifting. We talk about believing that there is "something" and you say what you just said. Then we examine the relative claims of different beliefs and you jump back to "You can't prove there's anything." Which is exactly what you proceeded to do:

Bearded skyman is not a ridiculous caricature of God. Nor does it matter because I wasn't talking about how there are different levels of improbablity. Belief in the Norse or greek Pantheon is just as reasonable (or unreasonable) as belief in The Loving God of Love Who Loves YOU!

Well, I could argue about whether it is just as reasonable, but that’s an entirely different question, and that’s my point. For now, let’s take it one step at a time and just talk about the idea that there is “something”.

Once again, intellect is obviously inconclusive on this. The “something” is as deep as life itself, and calls to something in human beings that is deeper than intellect. Some hear the call in what they see in the creation. Others hear it in the relationships with those that they love. Some hear it inside them in their own cries for something true and real. It is as personal and as individual as we are.

Those who hear and answer the call then seek to answer the next question: “What, or who, is it?” And yes, many, probably the overwhelming majority, settle for their answers in that with which they are culturally familiar. That does not negate the call of the “something”.

The problem with the arguments that you are making is that they cause you to shut out the call on the premise that it is contrary to reason. It is not contrary to reason, just in an entirely different sphere.

As for reason to believe in "something" and its call, I would ask you this. I don't know if you are married or have children, but as you are a human being I am reasonably sure that you really love someone. Is what you feel for them really no more than bio-chemical urges and naturally selected herd instinct? Is that what you tell them?

Once again, I am not dealing yet with what this "something" is, but can you really say that all that exists is what can be seen with your eyes or accounted for by science?

So much more to say, but it’s late and I’m working 2 jobs. Hope this helps.

[notyou2]

This post by a2jay proves evolution

bump to new page

[BigBallinStalin]

This post by a2jay proves evolution

bump to new page

more proof

[notyou2]

I can prove to all you god fearing, evolution denying christians that man is descended from monkeys right now and end this debate once and for all.













You're posting in MONKEY BUSINESS


oh.....and ask Andy, he'll tell ya

[Neoteny]

How about check out at least two posts even if it is mainly just to see images? Addresses for two individual blog posts with images you should check out here maybe...

http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=13
http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=14

There's an initial post found here that has one or more disclaimer referring to those and more perhaps...

http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... hp?t=64447

Note: I have come across formatting issues and one or more image did not show up in a quote in here and there's one or more misquote in here for all I know maybe.

I'm out of time for now. Perhaps I'll check those last few posts out later.

To get back to these: at least you were willing to put a disclaimer. As to the other two posts, all of those geological formations can be described more accurately by other means. Simply put, those don't match what we'd expect global flood deposits to look like, and we are missing what would otherwise be expected from a global flood.

[Phatscotty]

[Lionz]

Neo,

Did entropy decrease on earth without external usable energy added to earth?

Can genetics not be used to argue for common ancestory or a common designer? What suggests to you that wolves share common ancestory with roses?

I'm not sure what Allyn and Bacon Biology has actually said maybe, but what has motivated Allyn and Bacon to try to back up scripture if something has?

How many times has someone dated a living tree over 4,850 years with tree ring dating? Zero? How many trees are apparently between 3,500 and 4,500 years old?

http://buzz.krify.com/9-4965.html

What's coincidental? Can trees not even grow multiple rings in a year's worth of time?

I'm not saying I agree with everything at any site perhaps, but did the BBC itself not claim in 1999 that the Sahara was born 4,000 years before?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/390097.stm

Also...

Parts of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia were destroyed in World War II by ships anchors and explosives. Following this, environmentalists in Australia devised an experiment to observe the rate of re-growth of the coral of the Great Barrier Reef. After carefully observing the re-growth of the Reef over 20 years, they calculated that the estimated age of the Great Barrier Reef, based on their calculations, is 4,200 years old (Quoted from Creation Ex Nihilo Vol. 8 No. 1, p.).

Is Pando not a colony of trees with an average age of 130 years according to tree ring dating? It might contain trees with connected root systems, but where does 80,000 years come from? There are few if any naturally occurring new aspens in most of the western United States and 80,000 years is an estimate that's derived with the help one or more faulty assumption having to do with when climatic conditions have been suitable for seedling germination in the past perhaps. Was there not even a method used to produce an estimate 80,000 that is not supported by evidence of current germination according to wikipedia?

If He created a diamond filled earth out of nothing, then what will diamond tell us about how old earth is? What points to earth being billions of years old?

Water canopy around earth was brought up in discussion having to do with whether or not there was a production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere that had been constant for millions of years maybe.

What has actually been used to date strata?

Want to discuss the grand canyon?

Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.

If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.

The evidence does, however, point to Noah's Flood. Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah's Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Caynon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.

So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah's Flood.

4,000 ft higher? When do rivers flow 4,000 ft uphill?

What would me explaining things in my own words using adamant statements really prove whether I have avoided doing that or not? What do I really know?

Is 1 cm per 1000 years not typical according to Charles Officer? Whether we choose to not go by that if there happens to be a fossil running through multiple layers or not?



The flood resulted in quite a bit of sedimentary layers forming across the earth whether I personally think that 1 cm per 1000 years is typical or not maybe.

Polystrate is not a standard geologic term according to Talk Origins maybe. See a source numbered 3?

When has Noah floated in an ark suspended above a pot of boiling water? Who knows what has mixed with what and what was inside earth over 4,000 years ago? Does the Ogallala Aquifer not actually contain water that's about 30 degrees celsius? http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri004188/images/fig5.jpg

What is meant by global flood deposits and what is missing? The flood helped form the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of California and oceans on earth in general maybe.

I'm misquoting in here for all I know maybe, but perhaps I have ocd and a major fear of lying and use disclaimers to help relieve anxiety.

[Lionz]

Note: Not sure what is shown in any of these and there are words included that are not mine depending on definition at least perhaps.

[Neoteny]

Neo,

Did entropy decrease on earth without external usable energy added to earth?

No. There has always been external usable energy added to earth.

Can genetics not be used to argue for common ancestory or a common designer?

Genetics can be used to support any hypothesis. It's a matter of probability.

What suggests to you that wolves share common ancestory with roses?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 5-4-41.pdf

The eukaryotic orthologous groups (KOGs) include proteins from 7 eukaryotic genomes: three animals (the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens), one plant, Arabidopsis thaliana, two fungi (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe), and the intracellular microsporidian parasite Encephalitozoon cuniculi. The current KOG set consists of 4852 clusters of orthologs, which include 59,838 proteins, or ~54% of the analyzed eukaryotic 110,655 gene products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_% ... #Orthology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synteny#Shared_synteny

How many times has someone dated a living tree over 4,850 years with tree ring dating? Zero? How many trees are apparently between 3,500 and 4,500 years old?

I don't know. It has happened more than once I'm sure. There have been fewer trees between 3500 and 4500 years old than there are that are older than 5000 years.

http://buzz.krify.com/9-4965.html

What's coincidental? Can trees not even grow multiple rings in a year's worth of time?

What's coincidental are your age estimates (assuming they are valid) of ages of the desert and barrier reef.

I'm not saying I agree with everything at any site perhaps, but did the BBC itself not claim in 1999 that the Sahara was born 4,000 years before?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/390097.stm

They also said it was the most dramatic climate event of the last eleven thousand years. They also said a meteor killed off the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8550504.stm

However, I don't get my science from a newspaper.

Also...

Is Pando not a colony of trees with an average age of 130 years according to tree ring dating? It might contain trees with connected root systems, but where does 80,000 years come from? There are few if any naturally occurring new aspens in most of the western United States and 80,000 years is an estimate that's derived with the help one or more faulty assumption having to do with when climatic conditions have been suitable for seedling germination in the past perhaps. Was there not even a method used to produce an estimate 80,000 that is not supported by evidence of current germination according to wikipedia?

If you read the article, the answers to those questions were given.

If He created a diamond filled earth out of nothing, then what will diamond tell us about how old earth is? What points to earth being billions of years old?

If he created it out of diamonds, they could be dated to show when they were created. The oldest rocks are billions of years old.

Water canopy around earth was brought up in discussion having to do with whether or not there was a production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere that had been constant for millions of years maybe.

So now you're making stuff up to justify your opinions? Why would there be a water canopy?

What has actually been used to date strata?

Radiotmetric dating. Relative dating. Biostratigraphy. Magnetostratigraphy. Chronostratigraphy.

Want to discuss the grand canyon?

Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.

If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.

The evidence does, however, point to Noah's Flood. Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah's Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Caynon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.

So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah's Flood.

4,000 ft higher? When do rivers flow 4,000 ft uphill?

lol wut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta
Plus, the river didn't flow uphill. The entire river started 4000 feet higher and went down. If you seriously think that people have overlooked a fact like water flowing uphill, then maybe you need to give scientists a little more credit perhaps.

What would me explaining things in my own words using adamant statements really prove whether I have avoided doing that or not? What do I really know?

I dunno. But it would be nice to feel like I'm having a conversation with someone other than Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort.

Is 1 cm per 1000 years not typical according to Charles Officer? Whether we choose to not go by that if there happens to be a fossil running through multiples layers or not?

It's hard to say because it's impossible to find a quote in context. Is he talking about typical for one location? Is he talking about overall? Current science says this does not mean it will happen all the time. Anyhow...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentar ... tion_rates

The flood resulted in quite a bit of sedimentary layers forming across the earth whether I personally think that 1 cm per 1000 years is typical or not maybe.

In areas with a lot of flooding, 1 cm/1000 years is not typical. You can take my word on that.

Polystrate is not a standard geologic term according to Talk Origins maybe. See a source numbered 3?

That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that I can't find "polystrate" in any geology textbooks. Go here and search for "polystrate."

http://geology.gsapubs.org/

When has Noah floated in an ark suspended above a pot of boiling water? Who knows what has mixed with what and what was inside earth over 4,000 years ago? Does the Ogallala Aquifer not actually contain water that's about 30 degrees celsius? http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri004188/images/fig5.jpg

Even if that aquifer covered the whole planet, it would not hold enough water for a global flood. The water would have to come from somewhere deeper underground, and that puts pressure on the water that would heat it up and boil Noah alive if it came out and flooded everything.

What is meant by global flood deposits and what is missing? The flood helped deposit stuff in the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of California and other places maybe.

Floods leave very specific geological markers. If you look at the sedimentation around a river, you can tell when it was a flood year and when it was a dry year. If there was a global flood, if you dug down everywhere, you would find that sedimentation pattern. We do not find that. Floods deposit stuff everywhere, not just in random places.

I'm misquoting in here for all I know maybe, but perhaps I have ocd and a major fear of lying and use disclaimers to help relieve anxiety.

That's fine. Disclaimers are fine. If you misuse someone else's words, that's not a good thing, but if you are trying to be honest, you usually will be. You might still be wrong, but that can be fixed.

[Snorri1234]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html

[Lionz]

Neo,

What does geothermal energy have to do with the word external? Where has external usable energy been added to earth from not counting the sun?

What about those suggest to you that wolves and roses share common ancestry?

There have been fewer trees between 3500 and 4500 years old than there are that are older than 5000 years according to what? Has a living tree Ever been dated to more than 5000 years with tree ring dating?

I'm not saying I agree with everything at any site perhaps, but did the BBC not claim in 1999 that the Sahara was born 4,000 years before? Dinosaurs have lived on earth with man and there's an abundance of evidence for that which you have not seen perhaps.

How much of a Pando wikipedia article have you read? You refer to answers that back me up?

If He created a diamond out of nothing and handed it to you five minutes later, what could you use to date it?

I'm not sure if there has been a water layer around earth specifically or so called outerspace in general or both or neither perhaps, but see sections called Genesis 1:6-7 and Genesis 1:20 and Genesis 2:5 maybe. Have you not read about a water canopy theory before a couple of weeks ago? What have I made up?

Have radiotmetric dating, biostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy or chronostratigraphy been used to date non-organic earth?

I'm not sure what has been meant by a number of things perhaps, but...

How about the fact that the Mississippi River has a delta in New Orleans that is more commensurate in size as predicted by a 4400-year period (since the time of the Great Flood)? Why is the Colorado River delta practically non-existent after sweeping away 1000 cubic miles of earth material to create the Grand Canyon over supposed “millions of years”? Could it be that it was created in a short period of time (unlike the Mississippi’s delta) and the 1000 cubic miles of dirt is far out into the Pacific?

Is the Kiabab Uplift not about 10,000 feet above sea level? Does the Colorado River not enter the Grand Canyon at about 6,000 feet above sea level? And see this? Did the Colorado River flow uphill or not?
http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/escalante.gif

Do you theorize that single floods have layed down multiple layers of sedimentary strata? What if single floods have and there was a global one less than 4,500 years ago?

What would the word polystrate not showing up in an issue of Geology say whether that's the case or not? Has there been a Geology article that has mentioned a fossil running through multiple layers of strata with or without mention of the word polystrate? We're living in an attempted novus ordo seclorum and certain things are suppressed perhaps.

Who knows where aquifers have been and what has mixed with what? What if there is even scripture called Genesis 7:17 that means to suggest flood waters lifted the ark only after forty days?

If there was a global flood we should expect to find what? Widespread turbidites?





Snorri,

You refer to a site that says that the typical height of upright fossils is on the order of two meters maybe. Regardless of what is or is not typical, does this not show part of a trunk that's approximately 7.6 meters high?



And how many layers do you see? Do theorize that single floods have layed down multiple layers of sedimentary strata? What if single floods have and there was a global one less than 4,500 years ago? Also, what do you have to say about the fish fossils?

Note: This includes images with words that are not my own depending on definition at least and there is one or more misquote in here for all I know maybe.

[mgconstruction]

<looking in> Anyone find anything yet?

[BigBallinStalin]

Using the methods of sampling, scratching, debate-beating, and word juggling, DJ Lionz and DJ Neotony are still battling it out to see who is the DJ-debater of the greatest endurance. A battle of sheer willpower, we continue to see these two repeatedly arguing over the same points but with some variation to create new arguments from the old. DJ Debating at its finest.

Good luck, gentlemen.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri,

You refer to a site that says that the typical height of upright fossils is on the order of two meters maybe. Regardless of what is or is not typical, does this not show part of a trunk that's approximately 7.6 meters high?

dunno, guess it does. Except that if I take the thingie on the photo that says "1m" I would guess that fossil is slight above 2 meters.
What does that matter?

And how many layers do you see? Do theorize that single floods have layed down multiple layers of sedimentary strata? What if single floods have and there was a global one less than 4,500 years ago? Also, what do you have to say about the fish fossils?

Have you read the link?

Single local floods, usually around rivers, have caused this. It is unlikely that a global flood 4,500 years ago has caused them all for several reasons:

The first argument is that the fossils aren't all found on one single level of the Geologic Column. Some are from the Devonian Period, well before the dinosaurs. Some were buried long after the dinosaurs went extinct. This is what you would expect if each burial was caused by a small, local event. And, there are differences, depending on where they are found. For example, giant lycopod trees are only found in Carboniferous Period rocks, and cypress trees aren't found below the Cretaceous Period. The same comment applies to their leaves and spores and pollen. But this is exactly what you would not expect if a single, global flood had washed over them. Surely the flood would have ripped many trees up, and dropped them elsewhere. Or if not the trees, at least the pollen.

The second argument is that some upright fossils were transported to where they are now. Others are clearly still in place (in situ), because they are still rooted into a fossilized soil. The transported trees have had their root systems ripped, but the in situ trees still have the small, fine rootlets in place. It does not seem possible for a single global event to transport some trees and not others.

The third argument is that there are some upright trees which are on top of other upright trees. We know that the upper tree grew after the lower one was buried, because the uppper tree is clearly in situ.

[nietzsche]

How many times do I have to tell you? There's no such thing as Evidence for Dog.

Please lock this ridiculous thread.

There's a better thread than this, Post Any Evidence for the G-Spot, IMO it's something Cosmo invented to sell forever their magazine and to make men insecure.