Post Any Evidence For God Here

[BigBallinStalin]

What if He is real and loves you and misses you?

Aw, now you're stepping too much out of character.

[tzor]

No it's dictated by reason.

Reason doesn't "dictate."

Reason

• the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, sensible, rational ways
• proper exercise of the intellective faculty in accordance with right judgment
• a sane or sound mind marked by the right use of the intellective faculty

[jonesthecurl]

What if He is real and loves you and misses you?

Then he won't be sending me to Hell because he loves me.

[Lionz]

Is He willing that anyone perish?
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/2pet3.htm

[fumandomuerte]

Meh <3 Darwin.

[jonesthecurl]

Apparently so...

YHWH spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to the abyss, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2:5 And spared not the old world, bringing in the flood upon the world of the wicked;

2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live wicked

[Snorri1234]

No it's dictated by reason.

Reason doesn't "dictate."

Reason

• the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, sensible, rational ways
• proper exercise of the intellective faculty in accordance with right judgment
• a sane or sound mind marked by the right use of the intellective faculty

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

[Lionz]

3:9 YHWH is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

3:10 But the day of YHWH will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[BigBallinStalin]

Apparently so...

YHWH spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to the abyss, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

2:5 And spared not the old world, bringing in the flood upon the world of the wicked;

2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live wicked

OH MY GOD! This predicted the Gomorra gang's eventual downfall!! Unbelievable science in action here, gentlemen. Step right up and be amazed at this miracle!!

__________________________________

How dumb, Yahweh is misspelled.

[MeDeFe]

NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!

[Lionz]

YHWH is used as a transliteration of the four letters and not the actual Name there maybe. Yahuwah might be as close as it gets with English.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

Did life arise from non-life on earth with no usable external energy added to earth?

No. There was usable external energy, just no way to use it.

Would all life that has ever existed not include life that has died out in the past? Do you theorize that life has arisen from non-life more than once and yet theorize that there happens to be nothing alive right now that does not share common ancestory?

I have no specific hypothesis on how many times life has arisen other than it has happened at least once. As far as we have seen, there is nothing alive right now that indicates they derived from a separate abiogenesis event.

If we don't know what has happened in the past in regards how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere, then how useful is the carbon-14 method?

It is useful because it has been calibrated with other methods of dating. Using these calibrations, we can determine that C14 production is stable enough to be trusted.

What would not be feasible? Would a solid or non-solid canopy of H2O around the earth not have it's own gravitational field that would help keep it suspended?

That doesn't make much sense, since the gravitation field of the earth would pull it down on top of us. Additionally, if it did somehow manage to stay up there, the weight of it would pressure cook us. This is why a water canopy is not feasible.

Do you have a source that compares carbon-14 dates with texts and tree rings? Whether or not there are preflood things and postflood things and the former are much harder to date?

http://www.radiocarbon.eu/tree-ring-calibration.htm

There is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

I have trouble taking those quotes seriously without the context, but even if they are intended as you represent them, the science of radiometric dating has improved drastically since the 60s and 70s.

Does uranium not decay and produce helium-4 as a by-product? Should there not be more helium-4 on earth if earth is billions of years old?

It has already been noted that helium can and does escape the atmosphere.

What if a diamond filled earth was created from nothing and Adam had pubic hair as a one year old? If someone is trying to determine whether or not earth and living organisms were created from nothing, should they assume that earth and living organisms were not?

I have no idea what you are talking about, but that first question made me chuckle.

There is one or more section concering Isochron Dating here that you should check out maybe... http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ting-prove

We are, again, getting out of my field. My confidence in radiometric dating techniques has not been shaken by that article.

Did Charles Lyell not invent the geologic column? And when has depth of earth been used to date a fossil?

Lyell's biases do not invalidate his science; the science has stood on its own. You can use strata to date a fossil.

Rocks by Fossils or Fossils by Rocks?

So, let’s see what the evolutionists say about this circular reasoning in the textbooks. Do they really use the fossils to date the rocks and the rocks to date the fossils? Well, here’s Glenco Biology. On page 306 they date the rocks by the fossils. On the very next page, page 307 they are dating the fossils by the rocks. Circular reasoning right in the text book. "The intelligent layman has long suspected the use of circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." (J.E. O’Rourke) "Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the nineteenth century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very modern examples, which really are archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." (Derek Ager) Don’t tell me they date those layers by carbon dating or potassium argon dating, or rubidium strontium, or lead 208, or lead 206, or U235 or U238; that’s not how they date them! They date the rock layers by the fossils in every case. "Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from." Quote goes on. "And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record." That’s Niles Eldredge, one of the biggest evolutionists there is. American Museum of Natural History in New York. He knows it’s circular reasoning.
How about this: "The rocks do date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." (Figure that one out) "Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (J.E. O’Rourke) They have to use circular reasoning. "The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the concern of the public (In other words, it is none of your business) or…it can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice…. Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning." (J.E. O’Rourke) Don’t tell me that you know the age of those rocks or those fossils because they are both based upon each other. It’s all based on circular reasoning. "…evolution is documented by geology, and… geology is documented by evolution." (Larry Azar) Figure that one out, would you please. It’s all based on circular reasoning. It cannot be denied. "…from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists here are arguing in a circle." (R.H. Rastall) They date the rocks by the organisms they contain and the organisms by the rocks they are found in. Folks, it’s all based on circular reasoning.
I like to show evolutionists the geologic column, and I ask them this question: "now, fellows," I’ll say, "you’ve got limestone scattered all throughout this geologic column. I mean there is limestone and shale and sandstone and conglomerate and limestone and sandstone and limestone and shale. And I say, "How do you tell the difference? If I hand you a piece of limestone, how would you tell the difference between 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone and 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone? I mean, how would you know how old it is?" There is only one way they can tell the difference: that is by the index fossils. It’s all based on that. "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (J.E. O’Rourke) They don’t date them by carbon dating folks; it’s all based on fossils.

I've already discussed this.

How many posts did you look at here? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2

Not many.

What if multiple layers of strata were formed as a result of particles suspended in flood water?

If that were the case, all areas of the world would show large particles on the bottom and small particles on top. That is not the case.

Are there not polystrate fossils scattered across the earth that traverse multiple layers of strata and suggest that's the case?

A single flood can lay down several feet of sediments, more than enough to cover a tree in a couple of floods (a tree can often live through the initial burying of the bottom of its trunk). Note that we do not see this all over the world in all the same deposits, which rules out a single large flood event.

And are fossils themselves not actually clear cut evidence for a global flood?

Have fish been buried while giving birth and eating?

Sure, but that does no imply global flood. That implies fish buried while eating. How does a worldwide flood kill fish?

[BigBallinStalin]

YHWH is used as a transliteration of the four letters and not the actual Name there maybe. Yahuwah might be as close as it gets with English.

What language was the Bible originally written in?

[Imaweasel]

YHWH is used as a transliteration of the four letters and not the actual Name there maybe. Yahuwah might be as close as it gets with English.

What language was the Bible originally written in?

hebrew=old testament.

Greek=new testament

[comic boy]

No it's dictated by reason.

Reason doesn't "dictate."

Reason

• the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, sensible, rational ways
• proper exercise of the intellective faculty in accordance with right judgment
• a sane or sound mind marked by the right use of the intellective faculty

One thing is certain, overwhelmingly ones choice of religion is dictated not by reason but by circumstance and geography of birth, the vast majority of people will stick with what they were first introduced to be it Christianity, Islam, Budhism or whatever. Peer pressure also plays a bigger part then reason where religion is concerned, its far easier to be Atheist in New York than in a small Mississippi town, conversely being openly Christian in Iran or a Hindu in Pakistan might not be a particularly wise move.
In England a majority of people would probably subscribe to a belief in God but their faith would be nominal, there is little peer pressure and consequently religion is largely a reasoned choice, church numbers for many years have declined at an alarming rate.

[tzor]

YHWH is used as a transliteration of the four letters and not the actual Name there maybe. Yahuwah might be as close as it gets with English.

What language was the Bible originally written in?

The oldest parts of the Bible were written in Hebrew; but not modern Hebrew as we know it today; it was lacking both vowel markings and spacing.

TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD LOOK HERE IS THIS SENTENCE WITHOUT VOWELS AND SPACES = TNDRSTNDHWTHTWLDLKHRSTHSSNTNCWTHTVWLSNDSPCS

Of the three parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, both the Law and the Prophets were in Hebrew. Some of the writings (the third category of scripture) were written in Greek. After the Christian era, Jewish Scholars would later consider these writings non inspired (conveniently this also eliminated the writings of the apostles who wrote in the traveler’s Greek.)

[Imaweasel]

Of the three parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, both the Law and the Prophets were in Hebrew. Some of the writings (the third category of scripture) were written in Greek. After the Christian era, Jewish Scholars would later consider these writings non inspired (conveniently this also eliminated the writings of the apostles who wrote in the traveler’s Greek.)

of course...this allowed them to reject jesus as a false messiah...had they accepted the apostles writtings they would have had to admit their fault in putting to death their messiah.

[tzor]

of course...this allowed them to reject jesus as a false messiah...had they accepted the apostles writtings they would have had to admit their fault in putting to death their messiah.

Not really, this all occured after the destruction of the temple. The Rabbis could have just placed all the blame on the Priests, who were out of the picture once the temple was destroyed. The temple was gone, they were once again displaced from the promised land. Thoughts of any messiah were dead and gone.

[Imaweasel]

of course...this allowed them to reject jesus as a false messiah...had they accepted the apostles writtings they would have had to admit their fault in putting to death their messiah.

Not really, this all occured after the destruction of the temple. The Rabbis could have just placed all the blame on the Priests, who were out of the picture once the temple was destroyed. The temple was gone, they were once again displaced from the promised land. Thoughts of any messiah were dead and gone.

i disagree...

[fumandomuerte]

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

[daddy1gringo]

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

Thank you for illustrating my point:

Often people choose not to believe, on the premise that the burden of proof is on the "God exists" side, but that is not dictated by logic; it is a preference, and a prejudice.

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

And the argument went from there:

Sometimes they appeal to "Occam's razor", but first of all, that is also not a dictate of logic, but a rule of thumb: someone's idea of how to deal with uncertainty. Second, it is not a given that the existence of God poses any more questions than the alternative.

I think a more fair way to look at it is that when logic proves inconclusive, one must seek another source of "knowing" to answer his question. I like what Ghandi, who as far as I know was not an ignorant, Bible-thumping fundamentalist, {edit: nor was he talking about a "bearded skyman"} said on this: Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWr04MB ... re=related

After that, if one comes to the conclusion that some sort of "God" exists, that' is where logic and factual investigation come in to determine if this being has manifested and expressed him/her/it-self more clearly, more specifically, and if so, how.

Was going to say more, but it's late. Anyway, this might be a good spot to stop for feedback.

[Lionz]

Neoteny,

What would sunlight coming down and striking a planet without something able to harness energy from sunlight on it do to help entropy decrease on it? Does sunlight not actually help break stuff down? There was quite a bit of energy added to Hiroshimo on August 6th of 1945 perhaps.

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

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

What if Adam did have pubic hair as a one year old? You might consider stones themselves to be evidence for earth being billions of years old, but who theorizes that He created earth without stone in it?

There's a level of helium-4 on earth that does not back up earth being millions and millions of years old even if we take atmospheric escape taken into account perhaps. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp

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

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

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

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

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

Did you not say None of that is geological evidence for a flood referring to stuff here earlier... http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2 ...? Now you claim that you did not look at many posts there? How common is it for you to conclude there is no evidence for something somewhere without thoroughly examining it?

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



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

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

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









Tzor and Imaweasel,

Does the so called OT not include some post-exile stuff that was originally in Aramaic? Daniel Might have even originally included one or more word that was neither Hebrew or Aramaic.

Also, there's evidence that there's stuff in the so called NT that was not originally in Greek perhaps. You might want to search Hebrew Matthew and Aramaic Primacy seperately in a search engine. What do I know?

Fumando,

How many 15th Century Native American tribes were there who did not believe in a Great Spirit? Iowa Might even stem from the four letter Name.

Note: I have come across formatting issues and an image did not show up in a quote in here and there's one or more misquote in here for all I know and this includes images with words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

[stahrgazer]

Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.
http://www.biblica.com/bibles/about/11.php

[Lionz]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/49_matthew.html

[Snorri1234]

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

Thank you for illustrating my point:

Often people choose not to believe, on the premise that the burden of proof is on the "God exists" side, but that is not dictated by logic; it is a preference, and a prejudice.

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

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

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

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