Post Any Evidence For God Here

[BigBallinStalin]

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

AS DOCTOR OF TEHLOGICAL SCIENCE,
INFIDELS SHALL BE SILENCED!!

[Viceroy63]

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

AS DOCTOR OF TEHLOGICAL SCIENCE,
INFIDELS SHALL BE SILENCED!!

Of course, this is in no way insulting to anyone. Right????

Not stereo typical or even a racist remark. Correct????

BigBallinStalin; I gave you a good tip to find a small grade school child to help you with your spelling and grammar. It's "THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE..." AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT! I take it that's suppose to be you in the picture???

[BigBallinStalin]

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

AS DOCTOR OF TEHLOGICAL SCIENCE,
INFIDELS SHALL BE SILENCED!!

Do not insult my religious beleifs! You will be denied a seat at our monologue sessions!

[Lootifer]

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

Note the highlighted is incorrect.

That process will only produce coal. But it will not age the artificial coal in such a way that it returns a positive test for 20 million year old coal. If you date the resulting coal it will return the age of the initial pre-coalification wood sample. The reports of this coal making process cited nowhere that they tested the coal for its age. It was infact an assertion that was later added to the experiment by some creationist.

If you disagree UC please cite your evidence. I want to know who and how the resulting coal was tested.

UniversialChiro (aside: are you a chiropractor?) care to address this post?

This is often used as an argument to refute radio dating but it doesnt actually work without the woods' age being tested.

[tzor]

That process will only produce coal. But it will not age the artificial coal in such a way that it returns a positive test for 20 million year old coal. If you date the resulting coal it will return the age of the initial pre-coalification wood sample. The reports of this coal making process cited nowhere that they tested the coal for its age. It was in fact an assertion that was later added to the experiment by some creationist.

Not only that, it doesn't quite make coal. It is similar to coal, but it not the exact same as the variety of coal that is found in the ground. In the first place, it generally tends to be cleaner. It's sort of like saying that you can use the process to make white wine and it's exactly how bottles of red wine were made. Well, they are both generally wine, but they are not the same and they require different processes, time being a critical element that differentiates the two.

[universalchiro]

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

Note the highlighted is incorrect.

That process will only produce coal. But it will not age the artificial coal in such a way that it returns a positive test for 20 million year old coal. If you date the resulting coal it will return the age of the initial pre-coalification wood sample. The reports of this coal making process cited nowhere that they tested the coal for its age. It was infact an assertion that was later added to the experiment by some creationist.

If you disagree UC please cite your evidence. I want to know who and how the resulting coal was tested.

UniversialChiro (aside: are you a chiropractor?) care to address this post?

This is often used as an argument to refute radio dating but it doesnt actually work without the woods' age being tested.

I'd be happy too. First off my info was ridiculed for being false without thorough research. And the rest of my info, I see was accepted. A better approach from someone who wants truth, is to just plainly ask, "Please provide evidence".
Here is your evidence:

Magazine: Chemical & Engineering News, November 21, 1983. Page 42. "Chemist at Argonne National Laboratory have succeeded in making a type of artificial coal from naturally occurring materials. The process is much less severe than formerly thought to be necessary and provides some new insights into coal structure and how to alter it..."
Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it and its synthesis raises many interesting questions in coal chemistry.

How does this work? Wood is made up of Lignin (a binding agent) and Cellulose fibers.
Lignin + Clay + Heat (150* Celcius) + time (8 months) - O2 (vacuum) = 100% coal. Indistinguishable from other coal by all techniques.
Reference: Hayatsu et al. Organic Geochemistry, Volume 6, pp 463-471, 1984

This is all discussed in a youtube video between the following time slots:
From the 4:30 mark to the 20:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12jUKnPbHI

So now you have proof positive of what I said is true. And your claim of what I said as being false is wrong. What you do with this will reveal how dedicated you are to your faith in your belief in 4.6 billion year old earth to add validity to Evolution.

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

[BigBallinStalin]

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

Let circular reasoning be your "evidence," and you'll hardly be in doubt!

[Frigidus]

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

Note the highlighted is incorrect.

That process will only produce coal. But it will not age the artificial coal in such a way that it returns a positive test for 20 million year old coal. If you date the resulting coal it will return the age of the initial pre-coalification wood sample. The reports of this coal making process cited nowhere that they tested the coal for its age. It was infact an assertion that was later added to the experiment by some creationist.

If you disagree UC please cite your evidence. I want to know who and how the resulting coal was tested.

UniversialChiro (aside: are you a chiropractor?) care to address this post?

This is often used as an argument to refute radio dating but it doesnt actually work without the woods' age being tested.

[Wall of Text Redacted]

To save everyone time he didn't address the point and then told us to watch a 15 minute portion of a YouTube video.

[Woodruff]

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

I can be all kinds of successful at fortelling specific events years before they occur if I am allowed to be as vague as the Bible is.

[jonesthecurl]

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

I can be all kinds of successful at fortelling specific events years before they occur if I am allowed to be as vague as the Bible is.

and write it down afterwards.
And not need any corroboration.
I'm still waiting for the secdular historians that confirmed the price paid to Judas.
Or any independant evidence of the existence of Jesus.

[john9blue]

I'm still waiting for the secdular historians that confirmed the price paid to Judas.
Or any independant evidence of the existence of Jesus.

waiting for what? for them to knock on their door and hand you research that has been public knowledge for decades?

[Woodruff]

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

I can be all kinds of successful at fortelling specific events years before they occur if I am allowed to be as vague as the Bible is.

and write it down afterwards.
And not need any corroboration.
I'm still waiting for the secdular historians that confirmed the price paid to Judas.
Or any independant evidence of the existence of Jesus.

I tend to believe in the existence of the man named Jesus, as documented by the scribe Josephus (I believe that was his name and occupation, though I could be wrong). And I tend to believe that he was a generally good man who traveled that part of the world prosetylizing, eventually becoming an enemy of some religious folks and some Romans, both of whom saw him as competition, and that they conspired to have him killed. I tend to think he may have been suffering from a mental condition (schitzophrenia or insanity of some sort) or that he was a very talented con man. But that's pretty much the extent of what I believe regarding his life.

[jonesthecurl]

I'm still waiting for the secdular historians that confirmed the price paid to Judas.
Or any independant evidence of the existence of Jesus.

waiting for what? for them to knock on their door and hand you research that has been public knowledge for decades?

Source please.

[jonesthecurl]

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

I can be all kinds of successful at fortelling specific events years before they occur if I am allowed to be as vague as the Bible is.

and write it down afterwards.
And not need any corroboration.
I'm still waiting for the secdular historians that confirmed the price paid to Judas.
Or any independant evidence of the existence of Jesus.

I tend to believe in the existence of the man named Jesus, as documented by the scribe Josephus (I believe that was his name and occupation, though I could be wrong). And I tend to believe that he was a generally good man who traveled that part of the world prosetylizing, eventually becoming an enemy of some religious folks and some Romans, both of whom saw him as competition, and that they conspired to have him killed. I tend to think he may have been suffering from a mental condition (schitzophrenia or insanity of some sort) or that he was a very talented con man. But that's pretty much the extent of what I believe regarding his life.

I think he was real too, (though Josephus I believe only records that people believed in him, and wrote some time after the crucifixion, thus any speculation he made as to the reality of the figure central to the beliefs is not contemporary confirmation.) I certainly don't dispute that people believe in Jesus. The rest of your speculations on the nature of Jesus are somewhat in agreement with mine, but I was looking for proof from the people that talk about "fulfilled prophecies". And by this I mean independent proof, not something from their own holy book.

[jonesthecurl]

Oh, and the bit about the 30 pieces of silver was a part of the "fulfilled prophecies". There was a claim that his was recorded by "secular historians". I'm still waiting for confirmation of this one.
Happy to be shown this evidence of fulfilled prophecy.
Doubt that it will happen.
I glanced through one of Viceroy's posts on "fulfilled prophecies" and this was the first question that occurred to me. Deal with this one guys, and I'll look at some of your other claims.

[Woodruff]

Oh, and the bit about the 30 pieces of silver was a part of the "fulfilled prophecies". There was a claim that his was recorded by "secular historians". I'm still waiting for confirmation of this one.
Happy to be shown this evidence of fulfilled prophecy.
Doubt that it will happen.
I glanced through one of Viceroy's posts on "fulfilled prophecies" and this was the first question that occurred to me. Deal with this one guys, and I'll look at some of your other claims.

[Viceroy63]

One of the reasons people don't believe in the Bible, is because scientist are calculating life on earth to be billions of years old and the Bible describes life began on earth maybe 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The two are complete opposites, so both can't be correct. Since most of the world is declaring science is correct and the Bible is wrong, this creates a strong aversion of keeping people away from the Bible and quells any desire to read the Bible.

So let's look at how science derives to this old earth conclusion and is it accurate and truth:
They use an algorithmic formula of radioactive Isotopes to determine the age of things. For example:
Pb (Lead) X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of the Earth or item being tested
Po (Polonium)

The key is multiplying by a Constant Rate of Decay. If the rate of decay has always been constant then the age is accurate and probably truth, which means the Bible couldn't be true. But if the rate of decay is not constant, then the age is wildly inaccurate and the basis for not reading the Bible is broken.

Are there examples of the rate of decay not be constant? Yes. Whenever there is trauma on the earth, eg earthquakes, meteors, asteroid, floods, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc, that accelerates the aging process. Are there examples in nature of the aging process being accelerated? yes. In Nature: Mt. Saint Helen erupted in 1980 and it's violent eruption produced petrified trees in 30 years. A process that we are told takes 500,000 years. Wow that is a massive acceleration of the aging process. Can mankind accelerate the aging process? Yes. Take a piece of wood, sealed in a vacuum, with trace elements of clay, H2O and bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months (essentially a buried earth scenario). That piece of wood turns into 100% coal. Take that newly formed coal and the top scientist will determine the age to be 20 million years old with the best equipment available. But they would be wildly off, for that coal is not 20 million years old, it's only 8 months old.The old age of life on earth is the foundation for which all evolution is built upon. Since the constant rate of decay has been proven to not be a constant, then the age of life on earth is inaccurate. Hopefully people won't be so against reading what the Bible teaches, for the source that was saying the Bible to be inaccurate has been broken. The Bible declares God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day (probably around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.).

Just another example of the holes in evolution. 1 of many. Stop having blind faith in evolution.

Note the highlighted is incorrect.

That process will only produce coal. But it will not age the artificial coal in such a way that it returns a positive test for 20 million year old coal. If you date the resulting coal it will return the age of the initial pre-coalification wood sample. The reports of this coal making process cited nowhere that they tested the coal for its age. It was infact an assertion that was later added to the experiment by some creationist.

If you disagree UC please cite your evidence. I want to know who and how the resulting coal was tested.

UniversialChiro (aside: are you a chiropractor?) care to address this post?

This is often used as an argument to refute radio dating but it doesnt actually work without the woods' age being tested.

I'd be happy too. First off my info was ridiculed for being false without thorough research. And the rest of my info, I see was accepted. A better approach from someone who wants truth, is to just plainly ask, "Please provide evidence".
Here is your evidence:

Magazine: Chemical & Engineering News, November 21, 1983. Page 42. "Chemist at Argonne National Laboratory have succeeded in making a type of artificial coal from naturally occurring materials. The process is much less severe than formerly thought to be necessary and provides some new insights into coal structure and how to alter it..."
Magazine: Nature, March 28, 1985. Page 316. "Winans and his colleagues at Argonne National Laboratory have taken less than one year to prepare a thoroughly characterized synthetic coal. The material they produce is indistinguishable from the real thing by all the techniques so far applied to it and its synthesis raises many interesting questions in coal chemistry.

How does this work? Wood is made up of Lignin (a binding agent) and Cellulose fibers.
Lignin + Clay + Heat (150* Celcius) + time (8 months) - O2 (vacuum) = 100% coal. Indistinguishable from other coal by all techniques.
Reference: Hayatsu et al. Organic Geochemistry, Volume 6, pp 463-471, 1984

This is all discussed in a youtube video between the following time slots:
From the 4:30 mark to the 20:00 minute mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12jUKnPbHI

So now you have proof positive of what I said is true. And your claim of what I said as being false is wrong. What you do with this will reveal how dedicated you are to your faith in your belief in 4.6 billion year old earth to add validity to Evolution.

There is evidence that the Bible is spot on, truth and accurate. And is in deed the word of God from God. For no man could foretell of specific events years before they occur.

Yes there is evidence, But this thread is not interested in discussing or looking into the evidence or even watching or reading any educational information or Videos. This thread is solely aimed towards the bashing of believers. There seemingly innocent questions are just bait to get one to present this evidence before it is outright rejected and the presenter of the evidence branded a fool for believing in God due to this overwhelming evidence which they fail to understand because they simply don't want to understand. These people need prayer not evidence.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes there is evidence.

No, and we showed you that in the thread dedicated to it... by the way, calling me a "non believer" is incorrect and extremely offensive. Try actually reading the Bible, instead of just reciting your favorite passages out of context.

[Viceroy63]

Yes there is evidence.

No, and we showed you that in the thread dedicated to it... by the way, calling me a "non believer" is incorrect and extremely offensive. Try actually reading the Bible, instead of just reciting your favorite passages out of context.

Player; This is absolutely amazing! I am impressed with you. For the first time that I have been reading your posts, you actually made a point, without writing a 1000 page novel. Wow! =)

Perhaps we can really talk now? Exactly how is it offensive to call you or anyone for that matter, a non-believer? Either you believe that God Created you or you don't! Either you believe what the Bible says, or you don't! Could we talk about this perhaps? Without the novel reading. =)

[universalchiro]

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

Natural selection says primates evolved into hominids, that evolved into humans. But that humans shed their fur heading into the ice age, is unnatural. That no other animal evolved to shed their fur is unnatural. Humans have a unique ability to speak that has no parental descending evolutionary link, this is unnatural. That humans can't fertilize relative species, is unnatural.
We don't see dolphins building cars, we don't see elephants building houses, this may seem trite. But its a fact these animals have not progressed & advance in the way humans have. The advancement s of humans is exclusively unique: this is unnatural.

There is no reason humans should stand alone, in terms of it's nudity. Heading into an ice age. "If we were to subscribe 100% to the idea of survival of the fittest, it is illogical to think we are completely naked & we are losing all of our fur, that makes no sense. Because right after we lose our fur, we have to wear fur to keep warm. Without wearing furs, we would of died. The idea we shed our fur because we were stronger, makes no sense".
Giorgione A. Tsoukalos, Publisher, Legendary Times Magazine. Ancient Astronauts Theorist.

The enormous gap qualitatively & quantitatively of humans to hominids & humans, is to large to explain with natural selection. & to have only humans to have evolved mentally & other creatures that have been on earth millions of years longer to not have evolved, is unnatural. Natural processes we see today can not account for why thousands of species that have been on earth longer than humans, have not evolved mentally.

The rest of nature hasn't changed that much, why would humans changed so much more than the rest of nature: that is unnatural.

What is unaccounted for is going from apes, primates to flying in outer space. Humans stand alone in exclusive accelerated evolution from the rest of nature. This is unnatural.

Fox-P2. Is a gene found in our nucleotides. Scientists tell us us that that gene alone is responsible for language. This gene exist out of nowhere. No link from primates or with primates. This is unnatural.

All mankind can genetically be linked to one female in Africa. This is unnatural.

The double helical matrix of DNA of all life on earth rotates in the same direction. If life was based on random acts of natural selection, there should be a 50/50 distribution. This is unnatural.

The voice box of humans is to unique, to different from our closest relative the chimpanzee to come from them. Humans can communicate on such a deep extensive form that we alone exclusively evolved, is unnatural. We are too set apart from other life on earth.

Francis Crick, said that all life has the double helical structure rotating in the same direction in the cells, couldn't of happened by chance of natural selection. This has to be engineered.

[waauw]

Natural selection says primates evolved into hominids, that evolved into humans. But that humans shed their fur heading into the ice age, is unnatural. That no other animal evolved to shed their fur is unnatural. Humans have a unique ability to speak that has no parental descending evolutionary link, this is unnatural. That humans can't fertilize relative species, is unnatural.
We don't see dolphins building cars, we don't see elephants building houses, this may seem trite. But its a fact these animals have not progressed & advance in the way humans have. The advancement s of humans is exclusively unique: this is unnatural.

There is no reason humans should stand alone, in terms of it's nudity. Heading into an ice age. "If we were to subscribe 100% to the idea of survival of the fittest, it is illogical to think we are completely naked & we are losing all of our fur, that makes no sense. Because right after we lose our fur, we have to wear fur to keep warm. Without wearing furs, we would of died. The idea we shed our fur because we were stronger, makes no sense".
Giorgione A. Tsoukalos, Publisher, Legendary Times Magazine. Ancient Astronauts Theorist.

The enormous gap qualitatively & quantitatively of humans to hominids & humans, is to large to explain with natural selection. & to have only humans to have evolved mentally & other creatures that have been on earth millions of years longer to not have evolved, is unnatural. Natural processes we see today can not account for why thousands of species that have been on earth longer than humans, have not evolved mentally.

The rest of nature hasn't changed that much, why would humans changed so much more than the rest of nature: that is unnatural.

What is unaccounted for is going from apes, primates to flying in outer space. Humans stand alone in exclusive accelerated evolution from the rest of nature. This is unnatural.

Fox-P2. Is a gene found in our nucleotides. Scientists tell us us that that gene alone is responsible for language. This gene exist out of nowhere. No link from primates or with primates. This is unnatural.

All mankind can genetically be linked to one female in Africa. This is unnatural.

The double helical matrix of DNA of all life on earth rotates in the same direction. If life was based on random acts of natural selection, there should be a 50/50 distribution. This is unnatural.

The voice box of humans is to unique, to different from our closest relative the chimpanzee to come from them. Humans can communicate on such a deep extensive form that we alone exclusively evolved, is unnatural. We are too set apart from other life on earth.

Francis Crick, said that all life has the double helical structure rotating in the same direction in the cells, couldn't of happened by chance of natural selection. This has to be engineered.

Some of your mistakes:

• You're assuming all evolution was due to logical selection. Evolution doesn't state that at all, hence the referencing to unefficient biological systems in both the animal and human body
• You are also assuming that creatures cannot evolve to become smarter, though evidence suggests the contrary. Many dogspecies for example have been bred to be smarter than others.
• Fertilization ==> we've been over this, I'm not gonna go into this again. The repetitivity is starting to annoy me.
• You're also assuming that all creatures should evolve as fast as any other species. This is not true either. Again considering dogs and their heights for example, you can clearly see percentually larger differences in changes between heights in dogs, than in humans.
• Another assumption you make is that evolution is impossible because we are the only smart ones around. This is not true, we are able to build a lot of these complex things not only because of our mind but also because we are lucky to have hands. We are smart because we are able to use these hands to create books and pass down vast amounts of knowledge from generation to generation. Animals are able to do the same but because of the absence of hands they cannot create books, so the amount of knowledge they can preserve and pass down to younger generations is smaller. Also I'd like to remind you of the fact that scientists are finding out that several animals species might actually be smarter than we think.
• You also assuming that humans are the only ones that have changed a lot. This is not true, as many other species have just changed differently.
• You assume that because we are the only ones with certain genes that evolution is impossible. This is not true, as this is exactly what evolution describes, changes.
• You say all mankind can be linked back to 1 female. I thought it were 7, if you consider the mytochondrion.
• Evolution is impossible because we have a voice box different from chimps. You forget that we are not decendants of chimps and evolution does state that there will be differences. Some may be smaller, others may be bigger.

Also about the double helix turning in one direction:

The claim that the twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety first appeared in 1985, in a tract published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society titled "Life--How Did It Get Here?"

The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

However, some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

[jonesthecurl]

Yes there is evidence.

No, and we showed you that in the thread dedicated to it... by the way, calling me a "non believer" is incorrect and extremely offensive. Try actually reading the Bible, instead of just reciting your favorite passages out of context.

Player; This is absolutely amazing! I am impressed with you. For the first time that I have been reading your posts, you actually made a point, without writing a 1000 page novel. Wow! =)

Perhaps we can really talk now? Exactly how is it offensive to call you or anyone for that matter, a non-believer? Either you believe that God Created you or you don't! Either you believe what the Bible says, or you don't! Could we talk about this perhaps? Without the novel reading. =)

I thought uchiro said that most differences are "non-salvational", apart from Jesus died for our sins, etc? You seemed to agree with him at the time , and that the 14 billion years you disagree on are a minor point.

[tzor]

I tend to believe in the existence of the man named Jesus, as documented by the scribe Josephus (I believe that was his name and occupation, though I could be wrong). And I tend to believe that he was a generally good man who traveled that part of the world prosetylizing, eventually becoming an enemy of some religious folks and some Romans, both of whom saw him as competition, and that they conspired to have him killed. I tend to think he may have been suffering from a mental condition (schitzophrenia or insanity of some sort) or that he was a very talented con man. But that's pretty much the extent of what I believe regarding his life.

I think he was real too, (though Josephus I believe only records that people believed in him, and wrote some time after the crucifixion, thus any speculation he made as to the reality of the figure central to the beliefs is not contemporary confirmation.) I certainly don't dispute that people believe in Jesus. The rest of your speculations on the nature of Jesus are somewhat in agreement with mine, but I was looking for proof from the people that talk about "fulfilled prophecies". And by this I mean independent proof, not something from their own holy book.

First of all, one needs to take Josephus with a grain of salt, because he had a number of credibility problems and a few chips on his shoulder. Since none of them were against Christians, we may let him slide on this one. Remember we are dealing with almost two thousand years BR (that's "Before Reuters") so your source of "News" back then is basically nonexistent.

Fulfilled prophecies is one of those strange things (hindsight being an "exact" science). It's odd how some of them actually require bad translations in order to succeed ("young woman" in Hebrew translated to "virgin" in Greek, for example).

On the other hand, modern "prophecies" are closer to being spot on, especially when they come out of the blue and seem really stupid at the time. Even then, one might be able to argue against them.
The revelation to three children in Portugal that Russia was going to become an atheist country in need of conversion.
The outbreak of WWII, revealed just after WWI
The assassination / near assassination of a pope
Are just starters

[john9blue]

We don't see dolphins building cars, we don't see elephants building houses, this may seem trite. But its a fact these animals have not progressed & advance in the way humans have. The advancement s of humans is exclusively unique: this is unnatural.

just want to point out that the amount of time humans have been building cars and houses is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. the first species to evolve this far could easily have a millions-of-years head start on the 2nd most intelligent species.

[Viceroy63]

I would add that humans are the only creatures on the planet able to create great works of art or have the potential to be more then what we are. For all the songs the whales do sing means only that they can hum a tune with the rest of us. No dolphin will ever create a spaceship and orbit the planet.