Post Any Evidence For God Here

[nietzsche]

I declare this thread closed.

[Neoteny]

Grand reopening of the "Post Any Evidence For God Here" thread! Grab your party hats here!

[nietzsche]

Grand reopening of the "Post Any Evidence For God Here" thread! Grab your party hats here!

Under new management, more focused on evidence against god.

No doGs alowed.

[LikeYestrdaysJam]

What have Matthew and Mark written?

are you joking, i cant tell if you are for or against god if your for god and you dont know the gospels of mark and matthew you obviously dont have any idea about either

[Phatscotty]

[Army of GOD]

Please explain Lionz.

...

[Lionz]

Phat, ironic image maybe. Betsy Ross portrayed? I'm quite closely related to Betsy Ross perhaps.

Army, what's there to explain? What did Matthew and Mark write not counting Matthew and Mark, whether they wrote Matthew and Mark or not?

[Phatscotty]

Phat, ironic image maybe. Betsy Ross portrayed? I'm quite closely related to Betsy Ross perhaps.

Army, what's there to explain? What did Matthew and Mark write not counting Matthew and Mark, whether they wrote Matthew and Mark or not?

I know everything there is to know about you!

[PLAYER57832]

These are the kind of atheists that arise from the strict Christian households that go too far in trying to push their religion on children. You can tell because they are oddly fixated on making fun of the Bible and Jesus. Hopefully religious people will be more accepting about their religion once they realize that their hard-nosed attitude is producing atheists like this.

VERY TRUE!

And, though I don't want to divert this thread (there are 2 others with on-going discussions), this is just one of the many reasons why I harp so much against the Institute for Creation Research and the whole young earth creationist movement Dr Morris spawned. Truth will out. When lies have been so heavily tied to the Bible, and these lies are discovered, then it does make the person doubt all of the Bible.

The problem is, the grown-ups in this too often just won't allow themselves to even begin to question what they are told. Then their kids grow up to be teens and, whether it is finding out the truth of evolution, compassion regarding issues like homosexuality or simply deciding that their parent's dictates are too strict, they wind up rejecting all of their faith because there is no moderate alternative presented. Such strictness, far from bringing children closer to God, drives them away.

To quote a saying regarding some particularly strict groups : "How unchristian must one act to be considered a Christian?

[Lionz]

What lies do you refer to if you refer to actual ones that you can make mention of without judging someone in particular?

[MatYahu]

Truth of evolution? Evolution is hardly a truth, if it was so, if evolution was proven to be truth, without a shadow of a doubt, there would be no serious opposition. People like Dr. Wolfgang Smith, and Dr. Michael Denton to name a couple (for the sake of not having this post be a list of highly educated people who are opposed to evolution) would not be presenting the flaws, and arguing the THEORY of evolution. Evolution is not a truth.

[Frigidus]

Truth of evolution? Evolution is hardly a truth, if it was so, if evolution was proven to be truth, without a shadow of a doubt, there would be no serious opposition. People like Dr. Wolfgang Smith, and Dr. Michael Denton to name a couple (for the sake of not having this post be a list of highly educated people who are opposed to evolution) would not be presenting the flaws, and arguing the THEORY of evolution. Evolution is not a truth.

Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But evolution is pretty much as close to proven as you can get.

[Lionz]

Even if creatures bring forth variety, does that necessarily mean that everyone shares common ancestry with one another?

[Frigidus]

Even if creatures bring forth variety, does that necessarily mean that everyone shares common ancestry with one another?

No. But the fossil record suggests that it does. I'm not arguing about floods again, though.

[Lionz]

What suggests that there were not various kinds of creatures created with the ability to bring forth after their kinds or suggests that there are not similarities having to do with both speciation and common design among living creatures? What about the fossil record suggests that wolf or cow like creatures evolved to be whales?

[Frigidus]

What suggests that there were not various kinds of creatures created with the ability to bring forth after their kinds or suggests that there are not similarities having to do with both speciation and common design among living creatures? What about the fossil record suggests that wolf or cow like creatures evolved to be whales?

The fact that mammals didn't exist in the fossil record until near the extinction of the dinosaurs is one indicator.

[Lionz]

If index fossils are used to determine how old sedimentary layers are in the first place, then would turning around and using the sedimentary layers to date the index fossils not be circular reasoning?

[Frigidus]

If index fossils are used to determine how old sedimentary layers are in the first place, then would turning around and using the sedimentary layers to date the index fossils not be circular reasoning?

That isn't how sedimentary layers are dated.

[Lionz]

How are they dated?

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.

Note:That's missing an image and is misquoting by me for all I know maybe... you might want to check here...

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html

[PLAYER57832]

What lies do you refer to if you refer to actual ones that you can make mention of without judging someone in particular?

One set of lies I talk about extensively in another thread and does not need further discussion here.
But mostly, its not direct lies, its a matter of being too strict in the wrong way.

Two examples of this, but hardly all.
Parents who are overly strict, they make it very hard to impossible for the children to really comply. As a result, the kids learn deceit. They hide errors instead of admitting them because the consequences are much more than the child can face. They pretend to obey when around their parents, but take every opportunity they can to do otherwise when out from their parent's thumbs. And, because the consequences are either non-existant or too far off to make a difference to a child, instead of learning the sense behind their parent's rules, instead they learn that their parents are just unreasonable. It is far from direct and simple, but that's pretty much what happens. Children, for example who are not allowed candy never learn limits. When they get it, they pig out. Sometimes they learn their lesson eventually, but often only after health problems or, sometimes peer pressure. It is not becuase of their parent's teachings.

Along with this are parents who just issue rules "follow me or else" without any real explanation, or an explanation that is meaningful to children. To a point "the Bible says it" is OK. However, just as "because I said so", only works for a short while and for certain ages. No, you don't argue with a 3 year old having a tantrum! You pick them up and deal with them ... Explanations follow later. However, a 10 year old asking for permission to go to a friend's house, needs to be told "I trust you, but I don't like what happens in that house, how about if you have your friend over here or go to the park together" (etc.) All kids question their parents, but when all kids are given is a bunch of "thou shalt nots", with only the barest of "why", then they are less likely to reason out why they need to follow the "rules" of their parents.


In both cases, because the child doesn't learn to trust their parents or to understand the rules, they are vulnerable. They lack a real foundation and therefore are likely to fall to the first person or group that comes in with "new" ideas and ways. It could be drugs, it could be a cult.. many things.

Sex education is a mixed example. Contrary to what many conservative groups wish to assert, "abstinence only" education is tied to increases in pregnancies. Some of these programs are a kind of "just say no", with some moral reasoning. Some programs actually give out distorted or even false information regarding the problems, for example, with using birth control and/or engaging in sexual intercourse when not married. The truth is that there are plenty of purely objective, scientific and social reasons why teens ought not to get pregnant. The truth is that the goal of any good sexual education program is to have kids wait until they are ready to engage in sex. A good sex education is not a replacement for moral teachings of parents, it gives kids information that they can pair with the moral upbringing they get at home. This means, for example, talking about the pill, but also talking honestly about the failure rates, why they happen. It means talking about, for example, the high risks associated with pill use and smoking, about some other health risks (emphasis on talking to doctors, because a lot is specific to particular conditions, etc.), but not exaggerating those risks at all (trust is very, very important!). It means talking about the fact that NO birth control method is perfect and talking about the very high failure rates for all types of protection in teens. It means going into some of the difficulties with pregnancy, the realities of having a child at various ages. Ideally, it includes some honest discussion with teen mothers and the consequences. It means talking about the realities of sexually transmitted diseases. In particular, it means talking about the fact that ALL of those consequences can happen the first time, etc. This teaching is not actually "morally neutral", because the real and honest truth is there are many reasons why it is not a good idea for teens in our society to become pregnant. However, the emphasis is on the reasons and not "the Bible says so" or even simply "we say so". The emphasis is on getting kids to think about consequences. The job of parents is to give the moral backdrop. However, while the science can be taught in a semester or even a few chapters, the morality really takes a lifetime.

[PLAYER57832]

What suggests that there were not various kinds of creatures created with the ability to bring forth after their kinds or suggests that there are not similarities having to do with both speciation and common design among living creatures? What about the fossil record suggests that wolf or cow like creatures evolved to be whales?

The fossil record does NOT suggest that wolf or a cow -like creatures evolved to be a whale.
How about going back to the evolution thread, where all this has already been explained.

[PLAYER57832]

If index fossils are used to determine how old sedimentary layers are in the first place, then would turning around and using the sedimentary layers to date the index fossils not be circular reasoning?

That isn't how sedimentary layers are dated.

Again, I showed you this in the young earth creationism.. again thread. This is a prime example of why I said you ask questions and don't read the answers.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

What does birth control have to do with what has been told in terms of lies?

Mainstream evolutionary teaching holds that whales evolved from wolf or cow like creatures or both perhaps.

Thread Brethren?,

How about go check out a young earth creationism thread and search to see what's apparently refuted in regards to index fossils being used to date sedimentary layers if you want?

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,
What does birth control have to do with what has been told in terms of lies?

A lot of people who oppose birth control on religious reasons will overstate the problems with each to the point of untruth.

Mainstream evolutionary teaching holds that whales evolved from wolf or cow like creatures or both perhaps.

There are 2 other threads, at least, devoted just to evolution. Keep the debate there.

[PLAYER57832]

Truth of evolution? Evolution is hardly a truth, if it was so, if evolution was proven to be truth, without a shadow of a doubt, there would be no serious opposition. People like Dr. Wolfgang Smith, and Dr. Michael Denton to name a couple (for the sake of not having this post be a list of highly educated people who are opposed to evolution) would not be presenting the flaws, and arguing the THEORY of evolution. Evolution is not a truth.

Answered in the "young earth creationism ...again" thread.