Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

They do believe it J9B, they call it microevolution. What they don't accept is that over time these changes can add up so that from a single source gene pool belonging to one species, if that species adapts in different places to different environmental factors you may get divergence into more than one species (they call this macroevolution)

I'm sure one of them will correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the view that's been put forward several times in this thread and seems fairly consistent across the different fundie standpoints.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah sure, if you ignore errors about both birds and insects having 4 legs, bats being classified as birds instead of mammals, the Earth being made before the Sun, the value of π, plants being created before sunlight, the many many oh so many scientific errors in the flood myth, curing leprosy by means of sacrificing a bird and sprinkling it's blood around the house, the firmament and flat and/or stationary earth.... I could go on but I think you get the picture already (of course all of these are in the symbolic bits and not the literal bits aren't they?)

Define "symbolic bits" - anything that has been proved factually incorrect / impossible
Define "literal bits" - anything that we can still shoehorn is as accurate if we interpret that particular verse in a specific (and often very linguistically stretched) way.

No, but I am too tired to get into all of that right now.

[PLAYER57832]

I would also point out the fact that losing limbs is not evolution if the species stays in it's assumed same environment. I can understand a Bear turning into a whale because there is more food in in the oceans (Really I can't even understand that) but there was a supposedly radical change in design then. To say that the snake went from being a flier or a runner to a crawler on it's belly seems to me like de-evolution. At any rate this would suggest that Perhaps God made a change in the make up of the snake when God cursed the serpent and pronounced that from now on "Ye shall crawl on thy belly and eat dust..."

You are, again, mis-understanding evolution. There is no "end point", no real "ultimate design" in evolution, just adaptation and change. It is rare for species to change without a serious outside change forcing the evolution, but it can happen.

That said, yes, what evolutionists say and what the Bible say don't disagree... unless you take both the Bible and evolutionary theory way out of context or flat ignore evidence.

What I meant to say is that if fish evolved legs to walk on land then how is it evolutionary for creatures with limbs to go from walking to crawling on their bellies especially if they did not move back into the oceans, a different environment? Why did the creatures not crawl out of the oceans on their bellies in the first place, instead?

because evolution is not an intelligent process.

To me this does not appear at all logical and if evolution is anything, it is logical.

Funny how you, who don't accept evolution are arguing with the rest of us on points like this. The fact is that evolution is NOT "logical" in that sense. It is not strictly random in the mathematical sense, but is not driven by any design humans have yet discovered, not really, not ultimately. It is as easy to see it as a bunch of missteps as any straight plan

Evolution dictates that those mutations which are beneficial continue to be propagated, while those that are not beneficial or useful, become "Vestigial Organs or limbs." That being the case and limbs at some point were deemed beneficial for the survival of the species, why then did snakes 'logically' evolved to lose their limbs?

YOu keep arguing this point, but we have told you MANY times you are just mistaken. There is no such "rule" to evolution, though many try to misunderstand it that way. Any idea of selection and improvement ONLY applies to one specific trait at a very specific time, and then only when all other things are held constant.

Much of evolution is about "chance", not mathematical chance, but not predictable to us humans and not for reasons we really understand.

Am I the only one who sees that this is not logical. At some point the snake should have died off then if limbs were not helpful in survival. And if they were helpful in survival then why did they lose the limbs?

Again, only young earthers try to make such arguments. They try to argue this so they can "disprove" it, but the argument itself is just wrong, so the "proof" is just nonsense.

The only answer that I can see that is completely logical and answers these questions all the way around is that Snakes were created to walk and not crawl. Then because of sin and God wanting to make a memorial of this event, God altered the snake and reduced it to a belly crawler. That is why we see archeological evidence of a supposedly 90 million year old serpent with limbs.

Again the link that supports this truth of devolution, if we can call it that, short for de-evolution.

No. You just plainly remain ignorant of evolution, for all you try to argue against it.

As has been said before, the first step to refuting a theory is to truly UNDERSTAND it. Persisting in your misguided ideas will get you nowhere among those who study evolution for real.

"One-inch-long fossilized leg bone is visible on the surface of the fossilized Lebanese snake, but half the pelvis (where another leg would be expected) is buried in rock. The 19-inch-long (50 centimeter) snake (called Eupodophis descouensi) is one of only three snake fossils with its hind limbs preserved, so breaking it open to look for the other leg was out of the question, said study researcher Alexandra Houssaye of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris."
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html

So to answer the question...

==> One wonders how he got around before. By hopping on his tail perhaps?...

Not sure why you think this needs explanation. Just read what is written there.

No, not by hopping on his tail, but by simply walking or flying around until God removed that glory from the serpent and made the creature to crawl on his belly. Just as it is also stated in the fossil records. Snakes, at least walked first (perhaps even flew) and then they became belly crawlers.

[Viceroy63]

to the creationists in this thread: what don't you like about the theory of evolution itself?

if you accept that not all members of a species are born with the exact same traits, and you accept that some traits can be more beneficial to survival/reproduction than other traits, and you accept that traits can be passed down genetically... then how can you deny the fact that beneficial traits will become more common over time and the species itself will change?

is there anyone here that actually doesn't believe that?

Well simply that it has not yet been proven to happen or ever did. Yet it is talked about as though it were a true fact and it is not. There is more evidence to support the Biblical Flood of Noah then there is that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same thing. They are not and all the so called "evidence" in the fossil records will never prove that evolution has ever even occurred on this planet.

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done? Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

And I would be there amongst the first to shoot down every bit of evidence for evolution. Trust me, I will be there!

[Woodruff]

to the creationists in this thread: what don't you like about the theory of evolution itself?

if you accept that not all members of a species are born with the exact same traits, and you accept that some traits can be more beneficial to survival/reproduction than other traits, and you accept that traits can be passed down genetically... then how can you deny the fact that beneficial traits will become more common over time and the species itself will change?

is there anyone here that actually doesn't believe that?

Well simply that it has not yet been proven to happen or ever did. Yet it is talked about as though it were a true fact and it is not. There is more evidence to support the Biblical Flood of Noah then there is that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same thing. They are not and all the so called "evidence" in the fossil records will never prove that evolution has ever even occurred on this planet.

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done? Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

And I would be there amongst the first to shoot down every bit of evidence for evolution. Trust me, I will be there!

First of all, I don't think I'd trust you for ANYTHING short of my having run out of any other options (and I fear my odds would be very slim for survival then). You simply do not seem to be the sort of individual who is worthy of trust.

As for being there, the only thing we could trust you to do, based on what you've posted in this thread, is to continue to be willfully ignorant.

[john9blue]

to the creationists in this thread: what don't you like about the theory of evolution itself?

if you accept that not all members of a species are born with the exact same traits, and you accept that some traits can be more beneficial to survival/reproduction than other traits, and you accept that traits can be passed down genetically... then how can you deny the fact that beneficial traits will become more common over time and the species itself will change?

is there anyone here that actually doesn't believe that?

Well simply that it has not yet been proven to happen or ever did. Yet it is talked about as though it were a true fact and it is not. There is more evidence to support the Biblical Flood of Noah then there is that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same thing. They are not and all the so called "evidence" in the fossil records will never prove that evolution has ever even occurred on this planet.

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done? Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

And I would be there amongst the first to shoot down every bit of evidence for evolution. Trust me, I will be there!

that's pretty much what i just did.

which part of my argument do you disagree with?

[AndyDufresne]

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done? Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

And I would be there amongst the first to shoot down every bit of evidence for evolution. Trust me, I will be there!

If you create it, they will come. Let your fingers do the walking. <insert other semi-referential phrase here>


--Andy

[universalchiro]

to the creationists in this thread: what don't you like about the theory of evolution itself?

if you accept that not all members of a species are born with the exact same traits, and you accept that some traits can be more beneficial to survival/reproduction than other traits, and you accept that traits can be passed down genetically... then how can you deny the fact that beneficial traits will become more common over time and the species itself will change?

is there anyone here that actually doesn't believe that?

Well simply that it has not yet been proven to happen or ever did. Yet it is talked about as though it were a true fact and it is not. There is more evidence to support the Biblical Flood of Noah then there is that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same thing. They are not and all the so called "evidence" in the fossil records will never prove that evolution has ever even occurred on this planet.

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done? Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

And I would be there amongst the first to shoot down every bit of evidence for evolution. Trust me, I will be there!

Good work Viceroy.
The "Why" evolution doesn't work is a long list, but one issue is the leap of faith evolutionist use when they see adaptation & presume that given enough time, macro changes occur.
The reality is that no matter how much adaptation occurs to something living, its still the same kind.
Another problem is sponteneous life has been proven hokem. This is another gross abuse of science & merely a leap of faith.
These are just two problems of many holes & proven errors evolution adheres to faithfully.

[crispybits]

[john9blue]

Good work Viceroy.
The "Why" evolution doesn't work is a long list, but one issue is the leap of faith evolutionist use when they see adaptation & presume that given enough time, macro changes occur.
The reality is that no matter how much adaptation occurs to something living, its still the same kind.
Another problem is sponteneous life has been proven hokem. This is another gross abuse of science & merely a leap of faith.
These are just two problems of many holes & proven errors evolution adheres to faithfully.

why would macro adaptations NOT occur? if small changes can be mildly successful, then large changes can be hugely successful.

also, many macro changes (perhaps all of them) are simply accumulated micro changes. a good example is the giraffe's long neck. suppose there was an isolated place in the world where humans (or any other animal, for that matter) benefited from having extremely long necks, and were physiologically capable of having such long necks. suppose that, over many millennia, their necks grew several feet in length due to the increased success of people with long necks. when compared with the humans of the rest of the world, scientists would consider the long-necked people a new species, right? a new type of creature? is there anything you find objectionable to this thought experiment?

[tzor]

The "Why" evolution doesn't work is a long list, but one issue is the leap of faith evolutionist use when they see adaptation & presume that given enough time, macro changes occur.
The reality is that no matter how much adaptation occurs to something living, its still the same kind.

Well, on the first hand, there is considerable evidence for the evolution of sub-species. Species evolve when genetic changes get so large that mating is no longer possible. Isolation and a lot of time are required for that. Some scientists will take the time to study how asphalt flows. No one lives long enough to measure changes on the scale of tens of thousands of years.

Another problem is sponteneous life has been proven hokem. This is another gross abuse of science & merely a leap of faith.
These are just two problems of many holes & proven errors evolution adheres to faithfully.

Biogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. Please don't confuse the two.

[tzor]

also, many macro changes (perhaps all of them) are simply accumulated micro changes. a good example is the giraffe's long neck. suppose there was an isolated place in the world where humans (or any other animal, for that matter) benefited from having extremely long necks, and were physiologically capable of having such long necks. suppose that, over many millennia, their necks grew several feet in length due to the increased success of people with long necks. when compared with the humans of the rest of the world, scientists would consider the long-necked people a new species, right? a new type of creature? is there anything you find objectionable to this thought experiment?

Ignoring the long next part, there is actually an island where contact is literally prohibited (people who get in trouble often have to get rescued by air before the naked humanoids capture them). Whether or not the time frame is long enough to provide species differentiation is one matter. Since we don't directly study them; it's impossible to tell at this point. Perhaps in a million years, they will be their own species.

[PLAYER57832]

to the creationists in this thread: what don't you like about the theory of evolution itself?

if you accept that not all members of a species are born with the exact same traits, and you accept that some traits can be more beneficial to survival/reproduction than other traits, and you accept that traits can be passed down genetically... then how can you deny the fact that beneficial traits will become more common over time and the species itself will change?

is there anyone here that actually doesn't believe that?

Well simply that it has not yet been proven to happen or ever did. Yet it is talked about as though it were a true fact and it is not. There is more evidence to support the Biblical Flood of Noah then there is that Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are the same thing. They are not and all the so called "evidence" in the fossil records will never prove that evolution has ever even occurred on this planet.

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done? Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

And I would be there amongst the first to shoot down every bit of evidence for evolution. Trust me, I will be there!

Good work Viceroy.
The "Why" evolution doesn't work is a long list, but one issue is the leap of faith evolutionist use when they see adaptation & presume that given enough time, macro changes occur.

No presumptions or leaps of faith, sorry.

In some cases, there is little evidence to tell us how species evolved, but to pretend that is the case for all species, all adaptations requires utterly ignoring evidence.

You can pretend a LOT when you ignore evidence, but that is not at all the same as proving something true OR presenting your own evidence to refute accepted ideas about evidence.

The reality is that no matter how much adaptation occurs to something living, its still the same kind.

Not even close to true and not an idea supported by the Bible, either. A pretended idea presented by Dr Morris cronies when they finally accepted that they couldn't deny ALL change.. similar to how IRC actually admits dinosaurs did exist, but tries to pretend evidence shows they all died out in Noah's flood. The Bible doesn't support lies.. remember that.
This bit about "kinds" distorts the Hebrew understanding (note how few studious Jews are young earth creationists ) as well as multiple levels of evidence, both in living species, in genetic studies and in fossil evidence.

Another problem is sponteneous life has been proven hokem. This is another gross abuse of science & merely a leap of faith.

Somewhat true, but not really.

The most basic problem with your statement is that the origin of life on Earth and evolution are, while related, not the same theories. We don't even really know 100% for sure that life originated on Earth, though most scientists believe that it did. Evolution deals with what happened AFTER life was begun, how it changed to other forms, not how it got here intially.

Second, your understanding of the issue of spontaneous life is wrong. See, the idea that macroinvertebrates or even invertebrates, could arise spontaneously was very much disproven. Even advanced microbes -bacteria and the like cannot just appear as was thought by some long ago. However, there actually is proof that basic proteins can generate under the right conditions, as well as evidence of the most basic types of life generating. Whether those processes, "alone" (in this case "alone" would definitely include God's intervention) or if, say, life were actually created or partially created off Earth and then transplanted here is not 100% known... and irrelevant to whether life that exists and existed here changes over time to create new species.

These are just two problems of many holes & proven errors evolution adheres to faithfully.

No, but it does take work to understand what evolutionists really say, so we cannot really blame you for just going with the simplistic ideas you believe to be true.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done?

Been done, many times. You just leave when the evidence is presented, or pretend that things many of us here have actually seen and worked with are just lies.

Also... what John9 said.

Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

LOL
The Bible supports truth, not lies. Sorry, but most of what you present is either a flat lie (the claim that evolutionists do not accept God or the Bible, when most do) or a gross misunderstanding of evolution (as in the claims that natural selection means species have to get better and better, instead of just more adapted and actually more vulnerable to change, etc.).

In either case, you have been presented with evidence that you patently ignore. That moves it from "misunderstanding" to plain deceit. God does not support liars. Those who lie and try to claim they speak in his name blasphemy. YOU blasphemy.

[crispybits]

Maybe Player and Viceroy should have a smite-off - both go outside and hold a large metal cross in the air and whichever gets hit by lightning first loses

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe Player and Viceroy should have a smite-off - both go outside and hold a large metal cross in the air and whichever gets hit by lightning first loses

If we were still in the Middle Ages. Science, however, tells me the bolt would likely smite us both... (hmm.. probably not, because I would make sure to be in a less attractive location, being a believer in using the brain God gave me as well as faith).

[jonesthecurl]

I'm sure the God that makes uchiro rich and allows him to commit traffic offenses would choose correctly and protect Viceroy too.

[tzor]

Maybe Player and Viceroy should have a smite-off - both go outside and hold a large metal cross in the air and whichever gets hit by lightning first loses

Nah, lightning is too "modern" ... you need an old fashioned animal burnt offering sacrifice; whoever has the best rising smoke wins; kills the other and runs away. That's the Biblical thing to do.

[Gillipig]

Maybe some one should start a thread posting the so called "evidence" of evolution here. If there really is so much evidence to post then why is it not done?

Been done, many times. You just leave when the evidence is presented, or pretend that things many of us here have actually seen and worked with are just lies.

Also... what John9 said.

Why doesn't some one do that instead of trying to explain away the evidence that leads to the truth of the Bible facts? Because it would be shot down even faster then the evidence for God and the Bible is simply ignored on this one. That's why.

LOL
The Bible supports truth, not lies. Sorry, but most of what you present is either a flat lie (the claim that evolutionists do not accept God or the Bible, when most do) or a gross misunderstanding of evolution (as in the claims that natural selection means species have to get better and better, instead of just more adapted and actually more vulnerable to change, etc.).

In either case, you have been presented with evidence that you patently ignore. That moves it from "misunderstanding" to plain deceit. God does not support liars. Those who lie and try to claim they speak in his name blasphemy. YOU blasphemy.

The Bible supports gruesome punishments for imaginary offenses (like collecting sticks on a Sunday), so if the Abrahamic god exists I wouldn't be surprised if he was on viceroy's side.





I don't know if this video has been posted here before, but it's on oldie and a goodie. Four very active atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens) sits down and talk for two hours.

[universalchiro]

Good work Viceroy.
The "Why" evolution doesn't work is a long list, but one issue is the leap of faith evolutionist use when they see adaptation & presume that given enough time, macro changes occur.
The reality is that no matter how much adaptation occurs to something living, its still the same kind.
Another problem is sponteneous life has been proven hokem. This is another gross abuse of science & merely a leap of faith.
These are just two problems of many holes & proven errors evolution adheres to faithfully.

why would macro adaptations NOT occur? if small changes can be mildly successful, then large changes can be hugely successful.

also, many macro changes (perhaps all of them) are simply accumulated micro changes. a good example is the giraffe's long neck. suppose there was an isolated place in the world where humans (or any other animal, for that matter) benefited from having extremely long necks, and were physiologically capable of having such long necks. suppose that, over many millennia, their necks grew several feet in length due to the increased success of people with long necks. when compared with the humans of the rest of the world, scientists would consider the long-necked people a new species, right? a new type of creature? is there anything you find objectionable to this thought experiment?

You asked Why would macro adaptations Not occur? There is no evidence today, there is no evidence yesterday. You are postulating at best. And exactly what you are guessing at is what other purport as fact.

When I asked for the best example of evolution, someone copied and pasted some bacteria, that have adapted to environmental changes. When it was brought to their attention that they were still bacteria, there was just crickets or the shameful pictures of Jack from the Shinning.

What evolutionist forget is that zero times any number is still zero. But with a great leap of faith, evolutionist guess that life is billions of years old and given this huge amount of time, then spontaneous life is not just possible but truth. the basic axiom is zero times any number, even if that number is billions of years, still equals zero. Spontaneous life has been proven hokem.

What about this question? Do evolutionist think there are paranormal activity? Can humans be possessed by demons? When someone does something so heinous, like eating murdered victims, are they demon possessed? Does the Catholic church really perform exorcisms?
When a seance is conducted, do people really communicate with spirits from beyond? What about the Wigi board game, are there spirits that move the dial?

If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, then where did the spirits come from? Whether they are demons, angels or past humans, only spirits belong in a Biblical model, not evolutionary model.

[BigBallinStalin]

Spirits can be had for cheap at a local liquor store too, so they don't just belong to a "Biblical model."

[john9blue]

I don't know if this video has been posted here before, but it's on oldie and a goodie. Four very active atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens) sits down and talk for two hours.

they talked for two hours about a "default non-belief"? funny how that works...

You asked Why would macro adaptations Not occur? There is no evidence today, there is no evidence yesterday. You are postulating at best. And exactly what you are guessing at is what other purport as fact.

When I asked for the best example of evolution, someone copied and pasted some bacteria, that have adapted to environmental changes. When it was brought to their attention that they were still bacteria, there was just crickets or the shameful pictures of Jack from the Shinning.

What evolutionist forget is that zero times any number is still zero. But with a great leap of faith, evolutionist guess that life is billions of years old and given this huge amount of time, then spontaneous life is not just possible but truth. the basic axiom is zero times any number, even if that number is billions of years, still equals zero. Spontaneous life has been proven hokem.

What about this question? Do evolutionist think there are paranormal activity? Can humans be possessed by demons? When someone does something so heinous, like eating murdered victims, are they demon possessed? Does the Catholic church really perform exorcisms?
When a seance is conducted, do people really communicate with spirits from beyond? What about the Wigi board game, are there spirits that move the dial?

If you answer "yes" to any of those questions, then where did the spirits come from? Whether they are demons, angels or past humans, only spirits belong in a Biblical model, not evolutionary model.

well if you don't think there's evidence of my theory, then surely something must be wrong with my theory. but which part? or, if you agree that my theory makes sense, then it's your job to account for the discrepancy between my theory and reality.

also, many evolutionists don't believe any of the things you listed. i personally think they are all pretty sketchy, except maybe the "paranormal activity" one.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know if this video has been posted here before, but it's on oldie and a goodie. Four very active atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens) sits down and talk for two hours.

they talked for two hours about a "default non-belief"? funny how that works...

What do you mean?

(I haven't seen the video, nor have the time to, so I apologize in advance but would greatly appreciate an explanation of your position).

[john9blue]

they talked for two hours about a "default non-belief"? funny how that works...

What do you mean?

(I haven't seen the video, nor have the time to, so I apologize in advance but would greatly appreciate an explanation of your position).

i mean there is obviously a lot more attached to modern atheism than merely a simple "non-belief", if four people can discuss it for two hours.

granted, about an hour of that seemed to be criticism of religion without explaining why their position is better, but that's really not helping their case.

[BigBallinStalin]

What do you mean by "non-belief"?

That's non-existent. People will always believe in something... e.g. the belief that "god does not exist" or "the Abrahamic God is as equally believable as the FSM, Zeus, and Ra." These are still beliefs...

What are you hinting at/referring to with your reference about "non-beliefs" in relation to the video?