Post Any Evidence For God Here

[notyou2]

Erm.....Jones, that's a work of fiction much like the bible

[jonesthecurl]

NO! SAY IT's NOT SO!

[jonesthecurl]

I was not born to live a man's life, but to be the stuff of future memories....
Jesus, I mean Arthur, in Excalibur

[notyou2]

It's true, however, it's an eminently more enjoyable work of fiction in the humble opinion of this evil barbaric heathen.

[Lionz]

Jones,

What do you mean?

If computers are evidence for universal common descent, was the spork once a missing link between spoons and forks? You might have left out one or more thing on accident, but computers and silverware have designers and I'm not sure what a living alien creating life would say about life coming into existance for a first time perhaps. I was poking at logic or at least something like that maybe.

NY2,

Do you refer to 65 plus works composed by 40 plus individuals who lived centuries apart? If so, do you theorize that they all decided to lie to help spread lies in order to support one or more religion that's against lying and theorize that they did that without collaborating with one another? Question to ask yourself and not necessarily send an answer to maybe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Neit,

Want evidence for Him? Are there not eyeballs that are and is there not something called Bode's Law that is and is there not a lack of abiogenesis that is and is there not fulfilled Hebrew prophecy that is and are there not sexual organs that are and are there not personal testimonies that are and are there not laws of thermodynamics that are? You yourself have faith in things never observed that would have been in opposition to natural laws perhaps.

There is is there there is what therein there is is of course in there, so now what?

SultanOfSurreal,

Can you define evil? Free will exists and has led to actions done in opposition to Him perhaps... maybe you are against free will for all I know, but can love truly exist without it?

Note: I might have ocd and a major fear of lying, but maybe I misquoted above this for all I know... disclaimers can help me feel better perhaps. : )

Ah, well you adhere to the notion of duality, and that path will lead you in circles.

Some know that evil and good is one and the same thing--just like love and hate. One thing, not two.

[BigBallinStalin]

Jones,

What do you mean?

NY2,

Do you refer to 65 plus works composed by 40 plus individuals who lived centuries apart? If so, do you theorize that they all decided to lie to help spread lies in order to support one or more religion that's against lying and theorize that they did that without collaborating with one another? Question to ask yourself and not necessarily send an answer to maybe.

Oh, but perhaps they didn't decide to lie to help spread lies in order to revert that previous of process of lies with a whole new set of lies which support one or more religions that may or may not be against lying but some may say that it depends on whether or not they collaborate with the lies of one another or perhaps one other?

[Lionz]

.....

[tzor]

How have I been misinformed if I have been misinformed and misinformed somehow? What's a closed system if the universe itself is not?

Well if you want to get really technical (and I mean really mind numbingly technical) I am not quite sure. Current astrophysicists are postulating that the universe's space time structure interacts with other universe's space time structures (this explains the non uniform acceleration of the universe over time).

[Lionz]

Universe can be used to refer to all things anywhere and there is one or more definition issue maybe. If all that exists is not a closed system, then what is?

[jonesthecurl]

Let's try to take this at the logical level which goes "could life, the universe and everything just happen?", a variant of the clockmaker argument (If you see a clock, does that not imply a clockmaker? Is the universe not more complex? does that not imply a universe-maker?)

(apologies to those who've sat through this one before, but this is in response to the same argument it was in respnse to last time).

The universe is here.

It either (a)had a beginning or (b)it did not.

If (b)it did not, it was never created (because it was always here).
If it (a)had a beginning, then by definition that beginning had no cause. Why? because it was the beginning - the first event. There is no before, there cannot be a cause, or else it wouldn't be the beginning.

[Lionz]

What if He has always existed and yet the heavens and the earth have a beginning?

[PLAYER57832]

Which is just one reason why many philosophers and physicists suggest that all time is perhaps occuring at once, that we are merely travelers across time, much like we travel in distance.

However, that doesn't really answer the beginning.

Bottom line -- how, exactly, the universe and all came to be is something so outsider our current ability to understand we cannot even really discuss it intelligently.

Saying "God did it" is no more or less logical than any other option, because whatever happened is far outside the limited realm of what we call "logic".

[jonesthecurl]

What if He has always existed and yet He created the heavens and the earth?

What if she hasn't and didn't?

[Lionz]

Were you not trying to argue that either a or b was true and that the heavens and the earth were not created because of that? He does not have a beginning and the heavens and the earth do maybe... maybe whether or not He Himself existing alone would be the universe comes down to definition.

[PLAYER57832]

Were you not trying to argue that either a or b was true and that the heavens and the earth were not created because of that? He does not have a beginning and the heavens and the earth do maybe... maybe whether or not He Himself existing alone would be the universe comes down to definition.

and even so, then it just expands the question how did God get here?

Biblically, the answer seems to be "always here". However, we humans have a hard time concieving how that could be possible. Then again, we have a hard time concieving how there could be anything before Creation... or not be a beginning at all.

[jonesthecurl]

Were you not trying to argue that either a or b was true and that the heavens and the earth were not created because of that? He does not have a beginning and the heavens and the earth do maybe... maybe whether or not He Himself existing alone would be the universe comes down to definition.

You're getting there...

Why is it logical to insist that the "universe" (everything that exists or has ever existed) must have a beginning, but that "god" doesn't need to have a beginning? What caused god?

On a side question, what was god doing before the "creation"? I have it on good authority that he was exhausted after doing it...

[Neoteny]

Loosely, yes, through natural selection, or something similar to it.

Let me put it this way. Earth is an open system. It is clear that everything around us has increased in "order" with respect to other planets we observe. Without any added energy, everything would degenerate back into dirt and rock and metal. However, we are getting, and have been for several billion years, a massive infusion of energy from the radiance of the sun. So, over time, a significant portion of that mass of energy has been harnessed by natural selection (after the genesis of life, abiogenesis may have come about from other energy sources) to build up the "complexity" and "order" in our world. This is done at the expense of a massive amount of entropy put out by the sun. Heat energy is (if I remember my science correctly) some of the energy that possesses the least "order" by nature. And there is massive amounts of heat given off by the sun to give even our overall solar system a net decreasing value entropy-wise, even with the small (though seemingly large to us) increase in order on our planet. Our complexity could never increase to a value higher than what the sun could put out (plus whatever we could create from what's around us), and the sun puts out energy magnitudes of order higher than we could ever hope to match.

Is that clear?

Not really. The only thing restricted by the output of the sun, is the output of the sun. It may very well affect complexity, but it certainly does not cap our capability of future complexity. It could at best only be a mere factor in such restraint.

In fact, its possible that the sun could diminish in output suddenly, which could theoretically spur an increase in complexity.

If you only meant that we are bound by energy amounts available from the sun, then yes, that amount is most definitely influenced by the output of the sun, except that it is not impossible to imagine that there may very well be a way to actually artificially increase the output of the sun. Obviously, it would mean using elements found here, though more likely somewhere else.

In any case, complexity is not governed by energy, per-se, and there is no direct causal link. It is possible that less would mean more complexity, and more would mean much less complexity. Sun output is only a factor, and cant be said to always increase complexity, or limit complexity.

I don't think that reduces my clarity. Energy is the restricting factor for life (as we know it) and without the input of energy from the sun, we would indeed have to rely on what is locally available (which I mentioned previously, and is, compared to the sun, relatively nothing), and once that energy runs out, there would be no factor capable of boosting complexity. The limiting factor for life on earth (and thus the level of complexity on earth) is the energy available, and the vast majority of the energy available comes from the sun. Not like any of that really affects the gist of my argument at all.

Would the creation of an RNA molecule (let alone a light sensitive pigment), not be an example of order increasing?

Sure. What is the issue with that? The initial order is created by an influx of energy, which, through natural selection, increases in order (as energy is constantly added into the system).

It's no small task to be an atheist, every now and then you have to remind yourself why you keep going on, why you keep respecting a moral code.

I would like to note that this is not necessarily representative of atheist thought. Quite a few of us are very confident in our moral code and will to live.

Frigidus,

Engineered Environment
Well, Miller and Urey, in their experiment, both excluded oxygen. There is a reason they did that. They had what’s called a reducing atmosphere. The problem is if you have oxygen, that creates what’s called ozone. And ozone is essential to filter out UV light. You have to have oxygen to make ozone. And ozone has to be there or else the Ultra Violet light comes down and destroys anything here on earth. So they have to have oxygen or you cannot get life to evolve because it would be destroyed.
Another problem: oxygen is found in the lowest rock layers. I don’t believe the geologic column exists anywhere in the world. But even by their thinking, the oldest rock layers have oxygen in them.
Also, one of the gases he used was ammonia and UV light will destroy ammonia. So he has to have oxygen to make this work. Life couldn’t possibly evolve without oxygen. The problem is if you have oxygen, it will oxidize whatever you make.
See, in the experiment he had, he very carefully trapped out the product that he made. He filtered it out so it wouldn’t circulate through again because the lightning strike would be millions of times more likely to destroy what he made then it would be to create what he made. That’s not realistic for real life. You don’t get to trap out what you make when you are in the ocean.
What he made was 85 % tar, 13 % carboxylic acid, and only 2 % amino acid. And out of that only 2 amino acids were created. And those amino acids quickly bond with the tar or the carboxylic acid. He came nowhere close to making life. And the amino acids he made, [there were] basically only two and there are twenty different ones required for life. No, don’t let them tell you that they made life in the laboratory.

Amino Acid Scrabble
See, amino acids are sort of like letters of the alphabet. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet and from those 26 letters you can make millions of words. And you can arrange those words and make an infinite number of sentences. So, what he made was like making a few letters of the alphabet. Problem, half of those were right handed and half were left-handed. If you dropped letters on the floor, half of them would land upside down and backwards. Well, that’s not any good for making a common sense word. And half of the letters he made were backwards. There was a real problem with that. The smallest proteins have 70 to 100 amino acids in precise order and they are all left-handed. DNA and RNA are all right handed and there are millions of those in order. Now, what are the chances of dropping letters of the alphabet on the floor and ending up with 70 to 100 of them in an exact order, all of them right handed? The chances are zero! That will never happen! But the evolutionist has to believe that it happened. They take that totally on faith. They have not made life in the laboratory.

Brownian Motion
By the way, proteins (which they wanted to create from those amino acids—[amino acids] bond to make proteins) they un-bond in water much faster than they bond, and the oceans are completely full of water to the top. And Brownian motion is going to drive them away from each other. It is not going to bring them together. This experiment was a total failure.

Before diving into this, I would like to say that it's a bit disingenuous to use someone else's words without actually citing where they came from. This is apparently from a seminar given by Dr. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino himself), though I couldn't find it on the CSE website. Here it is elsewhere.

http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/ ... _1999.html

On another note, I just remembered why I haven't heard from Dr. Dino in a while. It's because he's in jail. But that's enough character assassination. Let's look at what he said.

First is his issue with the exclusion of oxygen. The current thought is still that oxygen was extremely rare in the early atmosphere, and the oxygen found in those older rocks (that Hovind doesn't believe exist) exists at extremely low levels, as would be expected if there was not much free oxygen. Additionally, the experiment Hovind is criticizing is the very first, most primitive of these experiments to be done. Plenty of other experiments have been done under a variety of different atmospheric conditions, and many types of amino acids have been derived (another interesting note, scientists have gone back and reanalyzed tubes [that were never opened, of course] from the original experiment with modern techniques and found an impressive array of amino acids. Much more than Hovind would lead you to believe. I can't recall the exact number off-hand, but I think it represented the close to if not the full complement of amino acids required for life).

Next up is the UV. Sure there was plenty of that, but there's no need to think that the new particles of life just stayed at the surface. They could have been forced down far below the surface, or clung to the undersides of rock, or even may have formed using the energy from geothermal vents. All of those could have provided shelter from UV (and also further lightning strikes).

Then we come to Hovind's DNA scrabble. First off, the odds of what he is describing are not zero. They are vanishingly small, but they are not zero. If every person in the world did that for a whole day, we might find one case that looks kinda like the combination would work. We might not, but if we did it day after day, we probably would in short time.And that's really what scientists are claiming happened. DNA and RNA probably didn't just form randomly. I think it was probably a simpler molecule. All it needed to do was be able to replicate itself, and then natural selection would be able to work on that replicator to lead to RNA or DNA and whatever else. It needn't be a sequence of 70 amino acids. It very likely was smaller, and built up over time.

Finally I would like to call into question Dr. Hovind's ability to understand what he's talking about. He makes the assertion that Brownian motion would only serve to drive proteins apart, and also that water increases dissociation of proteins. If this were the case, how would proteins survive in our body which has quite a high water content? Brownian motion is purely random motion that is not powerful enough to break up proteins, and water does not have a purely destructive effect on all proteins. There are many that are hydrophobic, but there are very obviously quite a few used in life forms that do just fine in water.

[Lionz]

Jones,

Everything that exists or has ever existed doesn't have a beginning maybe. Who insists that's the case?

Neoteny,

Do you mean to suggest entropy decreased on earth without useful energy added to earth? What can harness energy from sunlight?

Would Hovind being in jail not be evidence in favor of him? The devil might not be a fan. He was misinformed and is defended here perhaps... http://drdino.com/read-article.php?id=129

There's been misleading stuff taught about geologic layers perhaps, but when has Hovind said he believed a certain rock has not existed?

Does evidence suggest there was a time on earth with rocks and an oxygen free atmosphere? If not, should we exclude oxygen in any attempt to determine whether or not life spontaneously came to exist on earth? Maybe it was widely believed that earth had a putative primitive atmosphere with an early stage that did not contain significant amounts of oxygen at one or more point in the 1950s, but was oxidation not trying to be avoided?

And when does lightning strike something that UV light does not reach? Do you theorize that life came to exist on earth without an ozone around earth? If not, why even get into UV?

Is there a certain experiment you want to discuss and do you have a source concerning reanalyzation of tubes?

If every person in the world did what for a whole day? Do you have a certain number of letters in mind? Do you stand by the RNA world theory?

Brownian motion might tend to un-bond proteins water, but did Hovind claim that proteins did not exist in water? When have amino acids come together to form proteins in water?

Care to respond to this? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/ ... enesis.asp

[Imaweasel]

DrDino being in jail doesnt affect in anyway whether his creation arguements are correct or not and it is just ignorant and stupid to imply that.

now he also was very stupid and foolish in not obeying the law(something christians were told by jesus to do) and the fact he is in jail decreases his effective arguements effectiveness...

[Lionz]

Was he not misinformed?

http://drdino.com/read-article.php?id=129

[Imaweasel]

I believe that he knew what he was doing was not in accordance to the law yes.

He believed he would be able to get by with it because of loopholes ect he planned to exploit but then when things started heating up he claims ignorance of the laws as a reason he didnt follow proper tax things...I believe a man as smart as he was would know what he was doing and also would have the integrity to hire honest people to work for him so no I do not believe he was misinformed

[Lionz]

He was told by several attorneys that as a 508 organization, CSE was not required to withhold taxes and that each person serving would be responsible for paying their own income taxes maybe. Are taxes not used to support Planned Parenthood and ultimately murder unborn babies regardless of what he did and did not do and did and did not have knowledge of?

[Lionz]

I copied stuff and am not sure what CSE has been maybe... maybe I said stuff wrong.

[Imaweasel]

and that is where I run into problems with christianity.

they can "decide" what they do and don't have to obey. Yes taxes are used for stuff like that but also for good stuff. The roman taxes were used to slaughter and conquer other nations and to fee ceasers lust and sexual pleasures and jesus said to pay them?