Post Any Evidence For God Here

[nietzsche]

I AM SICK OF WATCHING THIS THREAD ON THE TOP OF THE MONKEY BUSINESS FORUM

[Army of GOD]

Bump

[Lionz]

Big,

What's been answered and repeated by me anyway? And what's meant by the second part or whatever?

[john9blue]

Lionz is...

THE RIDDLER



(you do ask a LOT of questions...)

[BigBallinStalin]

Big,

What's been answered and repeated by me anyway? And what's meant by the second part or whatever?

So why is it that you ask over and over again the same questions ? Of course, there are times when you do ask something that wasn't asked before, but wasn't it already answered, did you just fail to read it, or did you read it and then fail to comprehend?

[Lionz]

Big,

That's a classic example of what has been happening in here perhaps... there are two clear questions there and you answered neither maybe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Big,

That's a classic example of what has been happening in here perhaps... there are two clear questions there and you answered neither maybe.

Have you just said what I've been saying? Are we coming closer to the truth or are we going to blend in truth with faith?

[Lionz]

Huh?

[DangerBoy]

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

[john9blue]

^ Why do people do that? I believe in God and even I think that's not really a good proof. You need to back it up; how do those pictures support God's existence?

[BigBallinStalin]

Huh?

or don't you mean "Hh"?

[jonesthecurl]

The fact that some people are nice to each other is no better proof of God than the fact that some people are nasty is proof there is no God.
I've said before, I dislike being told that whenever I do something fine, the credit goes to God, and if I fail it's my doing.
I've had bosses like that before , and being invisible doesn't make the practice any more pleasant.

[V.I.]

You gotta love the patronizing look on that bitch's face in the second photo. If either of those two grayheads gave a rat's ass about the human condition they would've bought the homeless guy some liquor and fed the dog instead.

Jones is right; posting sappy pictures to prove the existence of anything - other than your obvious lack of cognition - is an inane exercise, underscoring the vapid, unquestioning sentimentalism routinely deployed tactically by religious groups in conversion and validation. Next you'll be asking us to take a "stress test", whereby you'll prove just how much we need your god.

[jammyjames]

Sorry there's no such thing as proof, you must make your own decision to accept or reject God.

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

You're an idiot... There is so much of the bible that completely contradicts itself.. and ever thought that maybe jesus was not a good man.. and that the bible is completely falsified? Because we all exaggerate things more than they are do we not? Who is the one to say that the bible is not extroardinarily over exaggerated and these 'miracles' that jesus did, well just plain weren't.

'Jesus - Dont believe the hype'

[BigBallinStalin]

[Neoteny]

Neo,

There might have been some confusion between us having to do with the word usable. Did entropy decrease on earth without energy coming to earth from an external source and being harnessed by something?

Yes.

What if you and I were to create a video game with a computer program and it contained beings with artificial intelligence who could reproduce with one another? And we were to create humans and beasts known for flying and beasts known for roaming earth and beasts known for swimming waters? Now ask yourself if you think you would use English characters to make the first in the computer program and Japanese characters to make the second and Egyptian Heiroglyphics to make the third and Hebrew characters to make the fourth maybe... perhaps we should expect for there to be similarities in DNA across a wide range of animals and a lack of such would ironically be evidence for there being more than One Creator.

Sure, I'm not ruling out the possibility, but your thought experiment isn't convincing. The issue is that it doesn't really resolve the issue of the original intelligence. It is still more likely that the initial intelligence evolved over time than has existed for eternity. Even if we created those things, the evidence for us is that we still evolved.

Do wolves collectively share certain needs for living? And do wolves and cats share fewer needs with eachother? And do wolves and cats share fewer needs with snakes than eachother? And do wolves, cats, and snakes share fewer needs with starfish than one another? And do wolves, cats, snakes, and starfish share more needs with eachother than with roses?

Kinda. More accurately the needs would be classified as different. A starfish has a different set of genes, so it needs different things, but all life needs certain things, and different genes just represent different ways of achieving their ends. Even if the answer to your question was a definite positive or negative, I don't see how that would affect evolutionary theory.

Also, what if He is an Artist who has streams of thought and He used and uses a creative process? And He created plants and then fish kinds after that and then a snake kind after that and then a cat kind after that and then a dog kind right after that?

That might be possible, but still suffers from the issue of the complex intelligence coming out of nowhere. You are willing to attribute a god to answer the issue of creation, but are you willing to attribute a creation story to god? If not, why not? The other more important issue is that you are now altering a creation story to fit the data that we measure. Instead of using the data to form a theory about how it could have happened, you are taking the assumption that there is a god and fitting what we see to match that story as closely as possible. Can you think of something that would convince you that evolution happened? What would that look like to you? Can you think of something that would convince you that god doesn't exist?

There has been some confusion between us having to do with the words putting, together and intelligence possibly. You don't mean to suggest that having an intelligence would make putting together a sandwich more difficult and do mean to suggest that putting together a robot with intelligence would be more difficult than putting together a robot with no intelligence?

No, I mean that putting a sandwich together or putting a robot together by a chance are more likely than putting intelligence together by chance. Intelligence is a very complex thing, and, if you believe in a god that has always existed, you take that for granted by just assuming it has always been.

How many rabbit fossil specimens total have been found?

I don't know. Why does that matter?

You referred to a Cornell page that does not say that a single tree has been dated to be 5,000 years anywhere on it maybe. And see a Practical Matters section? If Peter Ian Kuniholm means to suggest that a sample with fewer than 100 rings is a waste of time, then what does he feel a sample with 150 rings would be?

The bristlecone pine chronology of the American Southwest now exceeds 8500 years with the possibility that up to 3000 floating years will be added in the reasonably near future. The European oak and pine chronology, a composite of work done in Germany and Northern Ireland, is now over 11,000 years long.

It says right there that trees have been dated to over 5000 years. And, more accurately, there have been hundreds of trees dated back that far. If there aren't trees more than five thousand years old, how are they going back to eleven thousand?

It has long been known that individual tree rings can be changed, during growth, from the climate-signal-dictated size to a different size as a result of some disturbance. This disturbance (for example, insect attack, earthquake, release of gas, etc.) can make the ring either smaller or larger. If these disturbances occurred at sufficient frequency, and reappeared in sequence in other trees at later times, the actually-contemporaneous trees would crossmatch in an age-staggered manner, thus creating an artificial chronology.

For illustrative purposes, imagine the simplified situation of only three trees, (A), (B), and (C), which started growing at exactly the same time, and each of which lived exactly 500 years. If nothing happened, the tree-ring series would normally crossmatch according to climatic signal, with the crossmatch point starting with the first ring each of Tree (A), Tree (B), and Tree (C). All the constituents of the 3-tree chronology would overlap completely, creating a chronology that spans exactly 500 years.

Now suppose that an external disturbance causes rings 2, 6, 9, 14, etc., in Tree (A) to grow much bigger or smaller than they otherwise would. At about this time, rings 1, 7, 10, 13, etc. are perturbed in Tree (B). 300 years after the disturbance of the growth of the rings in Tree (A), the sequence of disturbances repeats in Tree (B), affecting rings 302, 306, 309, 314, etc. (The repetition doesn’t have to be exact, because the discrepancy can be covered by inferred missing rings, which are common in the BCP chronology). 400 years after the disturbances in the early rings of Tree (B), similar disturbances occur in Tree (C), affecting rings 401, 407, 410, 413, etc. Identical reasoning can be applied to many more trees, and over a much longer period of time.

The net result is the fact that Trees (A), (B), and (C) will no longer crossmatch across their 500-year common growth history. They will now only crossmatch at their ring-perturbed ends. The result is an illusory chronology that is 1200 years long. Crossmatching experiments that I had performed show that it is only necessary to disturb 2–3 rings per decade, sustained across at least a few decades, in order to override the climatic signal, and to cause the tree-ring series to artificially crossmatch at the ring-perturbed ends.

I won't rule out that possibility, but the chances of that happening for every tree in a chronology is very rare. It's not like an 11,000 year chronology is made of a line of single trees. Hundreds of trees all match up with each other over an area that are compared and analyzed as a whole. If one tree is affected by bugs, nearby trees that were not are just as accurate, and can be used to make sure the bug tree gets put in the right place. When you have so much data, little things like what were mentioned in the article stop being an issue.

We should step back and honestly ask ourselves if we simply see superficial resemblances to dinosaurs on page 31 maybe.

Those all look very superficial to me.

Math having to do with population growth very much can help us find difficulties having to do with theories about the past even if population growth has been a far thing from constant perhaps. Maybe there's a sentence you missed reading that says a ridiculous example of uniformitarianism and you replied to a part that's secondhand in one or more sense regardless. How did humans portray dinosaurs in artwork hundreds of years ago if humans did and did somehow?

Sure, it's uniformitarianism, and sure it's ridiculous. That makes it not useful for pointing out difficulties in long ages. Population mechanics are very heavily studied, and the fuzzy math from that link isn't a convincing counter-argument.

They may have seen dinosaur bones and used their imagination. They may have just been using their imagination.

You might want to assume He exists and assume there was an earthwide flood for a moment or more and ask yourself if you would blame Him for planting vegetation on earth immediately after the flood if it occured. What if there are human and non-human enemies of Him who have tried to make things difficult to see?

Sure, and that makes things into a stone-age drama. What if that chain of events is too outrageous to be possible? What if things are really just much simpler than that?

What has been used to date sedimentary rocks?

Relative dating and radiometric dating of nearby igneous rock. Also, sometimes certain minerals form as sediments are laid down that can be dated, but that's fairly rare.

What suggests the Colorado River had a path laid out and later geological activity elevated part of it 4,000 feet? If that happened, the river would have been drastically altered in terms of direction or would have ceased to exist or both perhaps.

http://pangea.stanford.edu/~annegger/ab ... ology.html

Interestingly, many of the sedimentary rocks exposed on the Colorado Plateau were deposited at or near sea level around 65 million years ago. The presence of these rocks at 5000 or more feet above sea level does not mean that sea level was 5000 feet higher; instead, it suggests that the plateau itself has been uplifted from sea level to its present elevation. The processes that produced this uplift and when uplift happened are still matters of some debate among scientists, as it is unusual for so much uplift to occur without much deformation of the rocks themselves.

If you have a stream of water flowing through sand, and you slowly raise a part of it, the water will still flow just fine. Imagine the same thing occurring extremely slowly.

What we find in the Grand Canyon is more consistent with the Flood model than with the uniformitarian model. We observe the formation of Cocoino Sandstone in the top of the Grand Canyon which can linked with sandstones in New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas. When we look closer at the interface between layers in the Grand Canyon, we see little or no erosion which evolutionists claim to be many millions of years old. The average state of erosion on the continents would erode the layers to sea level in 10 million years. So the observational data is not even matching up to the evolutionist hypothesis of age.



In a flood especially a world wide flood, one would expect to find a highly diverse rock layer. And that's indeed what we find, as sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon are found all over the world, showing very little erosion between the layers. Evolutionists have noticed the regularity and parallelism of the layers which suggests the rocks were deposited in a single uninterrupted sequence. Something a flood could do. But their assumptions on how the fossils are dated are in direct conflict of what they see in the rocks themselves. So what conclusion do you think would an evolutionist take? Pretty obvious, he or she would take the dating of the fossils assumption instead. It's the main reason why many secular scientists try to deny the flood evidence. However, their denial doesn't change observational data.

What do you refer to with other phenomenon if you said that? Is there sedimentary rock anywhere that has not been underwater?

All sedimentary rocks are deposited by water. Other phenomenon include typical ocean, lake, and river activity (which are made up of smaller phenomenon like mudslides, sand beds, coral formation, and stuff like that).

What would you expect to find if there were violent eruptions of water underground out west and water eventually covered all of earth weeks and weeks later and then eventually drained into areas called seas and oceans?

We would have a single layer (or a few) on all continents that looked like a flood deposited them, and that layer would have fossils of every single thing that died in that flood (lots of human and animal bones, as well as plants and fungi and all that other stuff), and they would all be "polystrate".

A global flood would make a considerable and observable impression in the strata. One would expect to find a pattern consisting of buckling, bending, tilting, in the strata. Not a smooth flat layer. This would happen because of billions of tons of weight created by the flood would put an enormous amount of pressure on the earth's crust. The pressure would increase as the flood gets larger and larger, thereby creating downwards pressure, and also creating upwards and sideways pressure in non-flooded areas. When the flood regresses to post-flood levels, an imbalance of side pressure is created. Upwards pressure is also created when the massive weight created by the water flow is removed. Observational data reveals the geological model for the flood. The structure of the Pacific Ocean, Continental Divide, and Mississippi River Valley show the water had moved off the uplifting western United States, while seeing the water rushing toward the Pacific Ocean and down the east slopes of the Rockies. We also observe bent, and tilted strata in various parts of the world as the result of what the flood left behind.

That doesn't seem accurate to me. The oceans aren't causing the strata to buckle. They just sit there. Buckling is caused by land pushing up against land. Water is heavy, but rock tends to be much heavier.

Are there not technically upright fossils that do not traverse multiple layers of strata?

Yes, but that's the downside of language. Sometimes things aren't quite as descriptive as they should be. If you look into science for a while, you find that scientific terms are funny that way. Sometimes they're overly specific, sometimes they're not specific enough.

How thin can liquid H2O get? Would a cubic foot of it not theoretically be able to cover a perfect sphere larger than the earth? Regardless, what would happen if earth became perfectly smoothed out all of a sudden? Would there be any earth above sea level?

Oh, I see what you mean. Theoretically, water is made up of tiny particles. There will always be space between the particles in liquid water. Sure, you can spread all those particles out, but at some point it becomes vapor and stops being relevant. Theoretically, a cubic foot of water could cover the world, but it would not be liquid.

There's some brief stuff here that can help you understand what Mt. St. Helens has to do with water perhaps. There might be an image with a meandering canyon shown. http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

I think those images aren't convincing. We see straight lines and branching, but none of the sharp turns seen in the Grand Canyon. It still seems that those sharp turns can't be formed that quickly. But thanks for trying to find something for me.

Horseshoe Bend is cut into sediment that was the basin of a lake known as Grand Lake maybe. We might actually come to a point where a natural dam broke just downstream from it. Here's a satellite viewer address with Horseshoe Bend pointed out and with a natural dam break area shown just to the southwest perhaps...

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=36.87944 ... =0&src=msa

You can more conveniently see it pointed out here also perhaps...



You can see some or all of Marble Canyon on a bottom left section in both perhaps. What if a natural dam was holding off a lake and it burst and Marble Canyon was carved as a result? And sediment turned into sedimentary rock centuries later and Horseshoe Bend was already well cut into the basin of the lake before that happened? Where did Marble Canyon come from if there was not a dam breach that led to it forming?



There's a Meandering Rivers section here that can help us better understand Horseshoe Bend and quite a bit more maybe...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp17110196

You claim that geologically speaking, steep walls mean softer rock? Horseshoe Bend has steep walls and was carved out of material even softer than rock perhaps.

Indeed, that hypothesis rides on the rock that the San Juan is flowing through is very soft. You can look at it and see lots of different rocks of varying hardness (they are what give the canyon the blocky look). Those particular meanders are through shale and limestone. Though those are soft rocks, I find it hard to believe that they were cut in a few centuries time. That is a massive amount of rock to move. Where did the sediment go?

I got it.

Neotony created Lionz. What we are witnessing is a man masturbating to a mirror.

Lionz does the sweet-talking, and Neotony bashes it down. Lionz asks the gentle questions to guide where this is going, and Neotony gladly obliges himself.

This isn't a battle of the wits v the witless, but the journey of one man inevitably headed to the climax of this story.

My God.

Of course.

Could one of you stop speculating and pass me a tissue?

BBQ,

What if Darwin had one or more right idea and yet stretched things too far? What if various kinds of creatures were created and they naturally bring forth variety after their kinds?

Maybe.
For instance, do you mean, that, God created the heavens and earth, etc. Then once the conditions were right, and the correct elements were assembled, he gave them a little "kick start" and provided the spark of life, turning a bunch of carbon and hydrogen atoms into an amoeba, which then went on to evolve on its own?

I guess that's at least as plausable as robots killing the elderly.

I didn't want to get into this jackass arguement. Darwin's theories explain how a species evolves quite well. However, they are quite lacking in regards to explaining how a NEW species manifests itself. Based on what we now know about DNA, if you buy into Darwin's ideas 100%, DNA itself would have to practice natural selection, in other words, a member of one species would have to be sexually attracted to another species because of a mutation within it's DNA that the naked eye can't see yet but will someday, 1000 years? 10000years? will mutate into something radically differant that benefits that new species and encourages it to survive.

For more, read The Selfish Gene.

Also, Punctuated Equilibrium?

[bbqpenguin]

wow neo

[Neoteny]

I am a machine.

[2dimes]

Sorry there's no such thing as proof, you must make your own decision to accept or reject God.

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;

You're an idiot... There is so much of the bible that completely contradicts itself.. and ever thought that maybe jesus was not a good man.. and that the bible is completely falsified? Because we all exaggerate things more than they are do we not? Who is the one to say that the bible is not extroardinarily over exaggerated and these 'miracles' that jesus did, well just plain weren't.

'Jesus - Dont believe the hype'

Show us these contradictions in the bible.

[john9blue]

This thread is legendary.

I thought we had gone a long time without a religion thread, but damn.

[DangerBoy]

^ Why do people do that? I believe in God and even I think that's not really a good proof. You need to back it up; how do those pictures support God's existence?

I can't answer for why people do that, but I can explain why I did it.

I don't believe that the original poster will accept any single post, picture, or line of reasoning as evidence. I knew when I posted those pictures that the atheists here and others would say that's just a bunch of people being nice to other people. However, I believe that God supernaturally changes people when they accept Him. He gives them a new heart and they take action on that change. To me, their actions are evidence that God exists and has motivated them to perform humanitarian acts.

Now I know from being here for a long time that that will never be accepted by you or the atheists here. I'm not saying you're an atheist by the way. Instead it will be spun to something like: those people just used religion as a motivation to perform humanitarian acts. After that will come a list of bad things Christians or other religious people have done and they will be called hypocrites.

I'm just saying that that is evidence to me. It's evidence to other people. It's just not evidence to a majority of the people who post in here and dedicate their lives to ridiculing believers.

[natty dread]

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

[jonesthecurl]

^ Why do people do that? I believe in God and even I think that's not really a good proof. You need to back it up; how do those pictures support God's existence?

I can't answer for why people do that, but I can explain why I did it.

I don't believe that the original poster will accept any single post, picture, or line of reasoning as evidence. I knew when I posted those pictures that the atheists here and others would say that's just a bunch of people being nice to other people. However, I believe that God supernaturally changes people when they accept Him. He gives them a new heart and they take action on that change. To me, their actions are evidence that God exists and has motivated them to perform humanitarian acts.

Now I know from being here for a long time that that will never be accepted by you or the atheists here. I'm not saying you're an atheist by the way. Instead it will be spun to something like: those people just used religion as a motivation to perform humanitarian acts. After that will come a list of bad things Christians or other religious people have done and they will be called hypocrites.

I'm just saying that that is evidence to me. It's evidence to other people. It's just not evidence to a majority of the people who post in here and dedicate their lives to ridiculing believers.

So only christians can be nice?
I can never be nice because I'm not god-inspired to be so?
I think if you asked around you'd find that the consensus was that I'm a nice guy.

[jonesthecurl]

Or is it only christains who need divine help to be nice? Why? What's wrong with them?

[john9blue]

I can't answer for why people do that, but I can explain why I did it.

I don't believe that the original poster will accept any single post, picture, or line of reasoning as evidence. I knew when I posted those pictures that the atheists here and others would say that's just a bunch of people being nice to other people. However, I believe that God supernaturally changes people when they accept Him. He gives them a new heart and they take action on that change. To me, their actions are evidence that God exists and has motivated them to perform humanitarian acts.

Now I know from being here for a long time that that will never be accepted by you or the atheists here. I'm not saying you're an atheist by the way. Instead it will be spun to something like: those people just used religion as a motivation to perform humanitarian acts. After that will come a list of bad things Christians or other religious people have done and they will be called hypocrites.

I'm just saying that that is evidence to me. It's evidence to other people. It's just not evidence to a majority of the people who post in here and dedicate their lives to ridiculing believers.

That's fine. I also think faith in God is highly personal, and the reasons differ from person to person. But the "posting pictures of beauty" approach hasn't really been sufficient to convince others, at least since the first page of this thread.