Post Any Evidence For God Here

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Thank you, john. Today I learned you are the only beautifully unique snowflake amongst the sea of mindless drones. What travails you must suffer.

[chang50]

on what issues specifically?

feel free to pick positions that you think would surprise me. i like to be pleasantly surprised.

Move the goalposts much John?You make a totally ridiculous claim,then when challenged dodge the issue.Of course you have no choice because you have very little idea what other people think politically based on their atheism for the very good reason nobody does.

[john9blue]

try me. Which is my preferred political persuasion?(narrowed it down to only liberalism as I already mentioned that I'm liberal in another topic.
Classical liberal, neoliberal or social-liberal?

or what about this one? Tell me what my economical persuasion is? What is my preferred economical system?
mercantilism, classical, neoclassical, Keynesian capitalism, austrian capitalism, chicago capitalism, ... ?

==> let's see if you get both of 'm right, because none of these have anything to do with my atheist point of view. But as you claim to know my political views, give it a go

the reason i asked for specific issues is because labels can get confusing when talking with someone from another country. there was a discussion in another thread about how "liberal" means something different in europe than it does here. because you are from belgium and i know pretty much nothing about belgian politics, that's why i'm hesitant to answer this question.

Move the goalposts much John?You make a totally ridiculous claim,then when challenged dodge the issue.Of course you have no choice because you have very little idea what other people think politically based on their atheism for the very good reason nobody does.

do you agree that (in america) most atheists adhere most closely to american liberalism? why do you think that is?

So a theist believes (accepts as true) that God exists.

We put the letter "a" in front of some words instead of putting "not". So for example "amoral" doesn't mean bad, it means without any moral properties at all. "Apolitical" doesn't mean anti-political, it means without having anything to do with politics. We could just as correctly write "not moral" or "not political", but these are ambiguous phrases that could be confused with other meanings depending on the context.

So, when we put the "a" in front of theist, what it means is that an atheist is anyone who is not a theist. Given that being a theist involves assigning a truth value to a statement, anyone who cannot assign a truth value to this statement is not a theist, and therefore TNs are, by definition, atheist.

Now do you want to stop quibbling about semantics and go back to when the conversation was interesting, like the point where I was waiting for you to demonstrate why atheism will lead to a total collapse of the moral fabric of society maybe? I've set out my case in response to BBS, still waiting for yours.

like i said earlier, you CAN stretch the definition of "atheist" this far is you really want to, but it wouldn't mean anything since the people i am talking about would be forced to label themselves with a word based on a concept they feel has no meaning.

if a german person calls you a dummkopf, and you didn't know what that meant, would you agree or disagree with them? my guess is that you would do neither.

[chang50]

Move the goalposts much John?You make a totally ridiculous claim,then when challenged dodge the issue.Of course you have no choice because you have very little idea what other people think politically based on their atheism for the very good reason nobody does.

do you agree that (in america) most atheists adhere most closely to american liberalism? why do you think that is?


It's possible they do,I wouldn't make a claim of that type myself.Now the goalposts are shrinking,we are talking about a very small percentage of atheists worldwide now.Nobody is even sure how many atheists there are in the US because amazingly in the 21st century there is an unbelievable level of discrimination against them for a developed country.For the sake of argument lets say they broadly vote Democrat.All we have established is most US atheists vote for a right of centre party in a heavily right wing country,in other words,very little.

[crispybits]

like i said earlier, you CAN stretch the definition of "atheist" this far is you really want to, but it wouldn't mean anything since the people i am talking about would be forced to label themselves with a word based on a concept they feel has no meaning.

if a german person calls you a dummkopf, and you didn't know what that meant, would you agree or disagree with them? my guess is that you would do neither.

I'm not stretching anything - I'm using THE definition of the words. A theist is someone who has belief in God(s) An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God(s), for ANY reason, be that because they know what God(s) supposedly are and reject the concept or because they lack the concept. By the way if not having a concept for God disqualified you identifying as an atheist then it would also disqualify you from identfying as a theological nocognitivist, after all how can you say the concept is meaningless if you don't accept that the concept exists?

If I didn't know what dummkopf means (and I do by the way, nice sly way to try and throw an insult there without it being obvious), then no I would not agree or disagree. But the point is that a theist holds a belief as true. I would be a "dummkopf-ist" if I held the belief is true that I am a dummkopf. If I do not hold that belief then I am a "not-dummkopf-ist" or an "a-dummkopf-ist". It doesn't matter if I understand it or not, the only positions that require understanding are the positions that hold it to be true or false or likely or unlikely. None of those positions is a universal philosophy that encompasses all atheists.

I'll give you a single issue - 100 atheists are asked the following question - how many (roughly) vote for each answer:

Homosexual sex is
(a) always wrong.
(b) almost always wrong.
(c) sometimes wrong.
(d) not wrong at all.

[universalchiro]

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

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

[AndyDufresne]

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

I'd like to hear more about these points, Dr. Lawrence. Could you elaborate?


--Andy

[waauw]

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

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

Before I answer you, I want you to know I'm not an expert in biology. It is not my field of expertise. So if I overlook something or if I make some mistake, please let me know. I'm glad to learn more if I can.

Anyway you state that Darwin's theory doesn't add up because of the fact that animals can't crossbreed because of some enzyme. However if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed?

As far as I understand animal reproduction functions a bit similar to gravity. The further you are from the gravitational field the less influence that field will have on you. So the more animals have mutated away from each other, the higher the probability that they won't be able to mate. The reason for this being that the the probability of their enzymes or membranes having mutated might have mutated too.

The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know".

Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it.

[crispybits]

But don't you guys know that evolution REQUIRES cross-breeding!!!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1#p4076191

(the argument has already been thoroughly dealt with, followed by some ramblings about radioactive decay (backed up by "evidence" that has nothing to do with radioactive decay) and then a general rant about how you can't believe the bible is true unless you make a decision before you read it that it's all true, and only then does it appear to be true to you (paraphrased from 1 Corinthians 2:10-16))

Also, I hope you never advertise for patients on here "Dr Lawrence", because unless you have a PHD or MD (in which case chances are you wouldn't be a chiropractor), you could end up in hot water for using that particular name for yourself.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=6
(question 8 )

Sincerley,
High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet Crispybits

[AndyDufresne]

Sincerley,
High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet Crispybits

High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet (HCA of 7th IF), could you elaborate more on this position? Also, can I be your yeoman?


--Andy

[crispybits]

Due to cutbacks it mostly involves making tea.

I don't have the budget for extra staff, you can have an unpaid intern position though. I'll throw in a banana at the end of each week from my own wage if your work is satisfactory.

[Nordik]

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

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

So please explain to me breeds of dogs. And please explain to me how dogs can mate with wolves, jackals and various other very distinct species.

While we may not be able to mate with the various ape species today (not sure anyone has tried for a while), there is certainly a wealth of evidence that we could reproduce successfully with other Hominidae species before they died out.

There are a large amount of examples of evolution that has been observed in living history. Evolution that has created completely new species which cannot mate with the founder species. The easiest example of course are Darwin's finches, but there are many, many others.

For a simplistic diagrammatic representation of how this occurs, see below.



Is it so difficult to for you to imagine that one of these species which has evolved no longer really needs the use of their wings and when a slight mutation causes the wings to become more limb like this makes them better at surviving?

Or lets go from the other direction. While they are in the vast minority, there are plenty of humans that have webbed feet and hands. Before the advent of relatively modern medicine (and lets neglect the fact that they were put to death by various religious institutions for a moment) they would have issues gripping basic tools. Today of course, it is a relatively simple procedure to correct this for the most part. However, what if humans were more reliant on food from the sea? Would not this mutation make them a lot better at surviving?

Humans are even now evolving. Just a few centuries ago, the Vikings were seen as giants by the people that they were raiding, but by today's standards they were really rather short. In 1954 the four minute mile was first achieved. But by today's standards for top athletes, that is actually pretty slow. That is evolution. We are biologically placing more and more emphasis on being tall and fast.

The whole idea that humans were "made" by a supreme being doesn't even slightly take into account observable facts and today, the majority of people that believe in creationism only believe in creationism insofar as that god made the spark that created life and hence ultimately created us. It is a kind of semi-creationism sell out version to be honest.

[AndyDufresne]

Due to cutbacks it mostly involves making tea.

I don't have the budget for extra staff, you can have an unpaid intern position though. I'll throw in a banana at the end of each week from my own wage if your work is satisfactory.

I think this sounds reasonable. My usual dress attire as a yeoman is as follows:

Spoiler

Click image to enlarge.

--Andy

[crispybits]

That would be acceptable, tho I would ask you to keep your skirts below knee length as we are a bit prudish in the 7th fleet - that kind of thing is what gives the 5th fleet a bad name imo

[universalchiro]

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

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

At the tip of the spermatozoa, is a capitulate enzyme that when it comes in contact with the ovum shell, this enzyme dissolves the shell for fertilization.

No other creature on earth has this enzyme to dissolve the human ovum for fertilization.

In fact each kind of animal, the male of that kind, is the only creature on earth that has the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of their female kind for fertilization. For example: all male dogs have the enzyme for all female dogs.
And all male equine have the enzyme to dissolve the female ovum shell of only their female same kind.

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

But since all mankind was created in the image of God, God sealed His creation, protected His creation. So that even when mankind practiced beastiality, God's creation of His own image, would remain pure, clean, sealed, protected.

Since we are created in the image of God, we perform the same acts with our creations:
When humans write a book, to protect their book, they will copyright it.
When humans paint a painting, they will sign the bottom corner to seal it and protect their ownership.
When an inventor invents something, they will patent their invention to seal it, protect it.

You wanted evidence, this is very strong evidence.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

Before I answer you, I want you to know I'm not an expert in biology. It is not my field of expertise. So if I overlook something or if I make some mistake, please let me know. I'm glad to learn more if I can.

Anyway you state that Darwin's theory doesn't add up because of the fact that animals can't crossbreed because of some enzyme. However if that very enzyme would mutate, as animals do in time, doesn't that mean the enzyme stops working? Or if I would rephrase this, doesn't that mean that evolution is the cause of animals not being able to crossbreed?

As far as I understand animal reproduction functions a bit similar to gravity. The further you are from the gravitational field the less influence that field will have on you. So the more animals have mutated away from each other, the higher the probability that they won't be able to mate. The reason for this being that the the probability of their enzymes or membranes having mutated might have mutated too.

The problem is in fact that to fully comprehend how animals functions, one ought to understand the entire DNA-sequence of the creature. However science hasn't gotten that far yet. We are still decades away from fully mapping our own DNA-sequence(and especially from having clear insights into them), let alone those of other animals. So why state that it is proof of there being a god if the basic building blocks of our body aren't even understood? In my honest opinion, the best we can do is say "I don't know".

Another point I'd like to bring to your attention is that if we do assume life on earth was created(just an assumption). What proves that we were created by a divine entity(I interpret it as all powerfull and all knowing). Why not believe we were created by aliens? Even if you got conclusive proof that animals were intelligently designed, you still have no proof of who did it.

All [when ever someone says "all", you must throw a red flag and study what they say to except or refute], All creatures that mutate too far away from their kind, are sterile. Hence, ending any further movement away from their kind.

But even if they weren't sterile, their pituitary gland releases hormones that cause that particular kind of creature to seek and pursue only their same kind. Also, pheromones released by all creatures are receptor specific to attract their same kind.

Putting this all in perspective:
1. Only the male sperm of the same specific kind has the enzyme to dissolve the egg shell of the same specific kind.
2. The pituitary gland of each kind of creature, produce desire for the same kind.
3. Pheromones released to attract a mate by the females, is receptor specific for their same kind.
4. When a creature mutates too far from their kind, they are sterile.
5. When a female sheep or goat is in heat, and a male dog is overwhelmed with desire to copulate outside their kind, the dog sperm still lacks the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of other kinds, except their own kind.

For 5,000 years that mankind has been keeping records, there is never and never will be a record of sheep giving birth to a half dog, or a female dog giving birth to a half goat. Why? All creatures have been sealed to reproduce after their own kind. Genesis 1:24 "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; cattle and creeping things and bests of the earth after their kind; and it was so. God made the beasts of earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind; and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;.. vs 26 Then God said, ' Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To think otherwise, is a religion. Why? Their is no evidence, their is only faith that dogs evolved from cats, or sheep evolved from wolf, or cats evolved from squirrels, or humans evolved from apes, or etc... purely faith based.
Put this another way:
1. We could soak a cat ovum in a pool of dog sperm and nothing will happen.
2. We could take a female dog in heat, with a herd of male sheep/goat/cats and no fertilization occurs.

[AndyDufresne]

For 5,000 years that mankind has been keeping records, there is never and never will be a record of sheep giving birth to a half dog, or a female dog giving birth to a half goat. Why? All creatures have been sealed to reproduce after their own kind. Genesis 1:24 "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; cattle and creeping things and bests of the earth after their kind; and it was so. God made the beasts of earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind; and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;.. vs 26 Then God said, ' Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Somehow, I am not sure the argument: "Dogs don't gave sex with sheep, thus God" holds up. Speaking of animals though, I did like this Sci Show video about a 'Grolar' bear---Grizzly Polar Bear.




--Andy

[Nordik]

All [when ever someone says "all", you must throw a red flag and study what they say to except or refute], All creatures that mutate too far away from their kind, are sterile. Hence, ending any further movement away from their kind.

But even if they weren't sterile, their pituitary gland releases hormones that cause that particular kind of creature to seek and pursue only their same kind. Also, pheromones released by all creatures are receptor specific to attract their same kind.

Putting this all in perspective:
1. Only the male sperm of the same specific kind has the enzyme to dissolve the egg shell of the same specific kind.
2. The pituitary gland of each kind of creature, produce desire for the same kind.
3. Pheromones released to attract a mate by the females, is receptor specific for their same kind.
4. When a creature mutates too far from their kind, they are sterile.
5. When a female sheep or goat is in heat, and a male dog is overwhelmed with desire to copulate outside their kind, the dog sperm still lacks the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of other kinds, except their own kind.

For 5,000 years that mankind has been keeping records, there is never and never will be a record of sheep giving birth to a half dog, or a female dog giving birth to a half goat. Why? All creatures have been sealed to reproduce after their own kind. Genesis 1:24 "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; cattle and creeping things and bests of the earth after their kind; and it was so. God made the beasts of earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind; and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;.. vs 26 Then God said, ' Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To think otherwise, is a religion. Why? Their is no evidence, their is only faith that dogs evolved from cats, or sheep evolved from wolf, or cats evolved from squirrels, or humans evolved from apes, or etc... purely faith based.
Put this another way:
1. We could soak a cat ovum in a pool of dog sperm and nothing will happen.
2. We could take a female dog in heat, with a herd of male sheep/goat/cats and no fertilization occurs.

You conveniently forgot the examples I gave. Let reiterate and add a couple:

Dogs with wolves and jackals,
Horses with donkeys,
Various large cat species being able to successfully reproduce with each other whilst being completely separate species,
A huge variety of closely related but completely separate species of fish, lizards, salamanders,
A huge variety of trees, grasses and plants.

Do you want me to go on? I can even give specifics if needs be.

You're right though that once they mutate too far the sperm and egg are not viable together, but when they are closely enough related, it is most certainly possible.

[universalchiro]

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

People believe the age of the earth is billions of years old. Why? Well that's what scientist are telling us. Why do scientist tell us that the earth is billions of years old?

There are several assumptions that are built upon to come to this conclusion. We'll address one today.

They see how much space debris is added to earth each year. This is a known and accepted fact that 80,000lbs of space debris is added to the earth each year. Now what the scientist do with that information is where there is a breakdown in discernment.

For they see all the layers of the earth. And at the current rate of debris being added to the earth, in deed it would take billions of years for all the layers to form. But there is a major problem with this belief/theory.

Petrified trees

Petrified trees are said to take 500,000 years to form. But for petrified trees to occur, there needs to be lots of soil covering, moisture, pressure and heat covering the trees in a relatively short period of time. Why a short period of time and what is a short period of time. Time as in not longer than a year to cover the tree. Why? if the time to cover the tree is longer than a year, the tree will decay and dissolve to a stump.

So what, why is this significant to debunking a billion year old earth? There are 100's of vertically standing petrified trees on multiple continents that transcend through 20 layers of soil. If it took millions of years for each layer of soil to build up, there would be no vertically standing petrified trees. For they would have long since decayed by the time a layer built up above it's stump. Therefore, vertically standing petrified trees are remnant byproducts of soil settling fast (within a year) covering the tree.

What event in earth's history fits a scenario with soil settling quicker covering trees in about a year, versus the current evolutionary model of soil building up over millions of years to cover the trees? The Biblical global flood. Genesis 7. Not only did it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, but huge water caverns burst violently open.Genesis 7:11 all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.... Now if water is bursting out of the earth, that water will be filled with clay, rock, dirt, sedimentary soil, silt, etc. And that water with high turbity (lots of earth mixed with it), the dirt will settle in layers according to density.

This explains why there are layers on the earth and why petrified trees transcend multiple layers. This is strong evidence that what the Bible describes is spot on accurate and give evidence of God since He is the author of the Bible. It's God's own testimony of what He did and what He requires of us.

Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

Click image to enlarge.

[AndyDufresne]

People believe the age of the earth is billions of years old. Why? Well that's what scientist are telling us. Why do scientist tell us that the earth is billions of years old?

This suspicion sounds suspiciously similar to something else I encountered in a related topic:

Subject: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Is the scientist who knows better really going to hurt his own wallet by disclosing the true facts

And so is the manager of the museum or the scientist who knows better really going to hurt his own wallet by disclosing the true facts? I don't think so.

I think we're onto something here. I remember back in '90 in the midst of the Gulf War, I was doing some internet searching investigating about this sort of theory fact. I'll see if the wayback machine can find it, but there was a website that purported documented the paleontology illuminati (also known as, to us in the inner circle, as the Paleonati), and their desire to cover up the lack of prehistoric fossils to keep their museum cash-cows lining their rich and dirt filled pockets.

They may try to win us over with free passes...

...but I think most of us will not allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes anymore.

The Paleonati are a fiendish bunch.



Keep your eyes peeled, friends. And next time you bring your kids to a museum, or attend one on a school trip, know full well that if they find out what you know, you may one day end up on the wrong end of their science dastardly work.



--Andy

--Andy

[Nordik]

give evidence of God since He is the author of the Bible.

And now I know you're just trolling. Nice try though.

[crispybits]

Dr Lawrence,

How do you define separate kinds? By your posts I am forced to conclude that you mean that kinds are groupings of animals that cannot interbreed, say horses, dogs, cats, rodents, etc are all "kinds" of animal. The test (one of them, at least) of whether an animal is of the same kind as another animal is whether or not the sperm of that animal will successfully fertilise the egg of the other animal. If the two animals cannot interbreed then does this mean they are definitely different kinds of animal, or are there additional criteria and the failure of interbreeding is just one indicator amongst others? If there are other factors, please could you explain what they are.

In order to accept your evidence for God, I need to make sure I understand it. I could be operating under a different definition for "kind" than you are.

Sincerely,
High Chief Admiral of the Seventh Imperial Fleet Crispybits

[waauw]

All [when ever someone says "all", you must throw a red flag and study what they say to except or refute], All creatures that mutate too far away from their kind, are sterile. Hence, ending any further movement away from their kind.

Ending any further movement away from their kind? The problem you are forgetting is that animals keep mutating and they keep passing their mutations to the others through procreation. And as a wild animal in Europe can't mate with an animal in South-east asia due to distance issues, differences occur after a while between the same animal species between different regions. In time they will keep procreating with animals from their own region and they will keep moving further and further away from each other. This process never stops.

But even if they weren't sterile, their pituitary gland releases hormones that cause that particular kind of creature to seek and pursue only their same kind. Also, pheromones released by all creatures are receptor specific to attract their same kind.

Why mention this? This is the exact same story as with the sperm cells.

Putting this all in perspective:
1. Only the male sperm of the same specific kind has the enzyme to dissolve the egg shell of the same specific kind.
2. The pituitary gland of each kind of creature, produce desire for the same kind.
3. Pheromones released to attract a mate by the females, is receptor specific for their same kind.
4. When a creature mutates too far from their kind, they are sterile.
5. When a female sheep or goat is in heat, and a male dog is overwhelmed with desire to copulate outside their kind, the dog sperm still lacks the enzyme to dissolve the ovum of other kinds, except their own kind.

How does this prove the existence of God or disprove Evolution? You have not addressed evolution whatsoever. Maybe you are trying to make a point and I don't see it. It's always possible, but please start connecting the dots instead of drawing more dots without explaining your line of thought.

For 5,000 years that mankind has been keeping records, there is never and never will be a record of sheep giving birth to a half dog, or a female dog giving birth to a half goat. Why? All creatures have been sealed to reproduce after their own kind. Genesis 1:24 "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; cattle and creeping things and bests of the earth after their kind; and it was so. God made the beasts of earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind; and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;.. vs 26 Then God said, ' Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Actually mankind has been keeping records for between 5,500 and 6000 years(ancient sumeria) and counting in wallpaintings its even more.
Also how in hell does this prove the existence of a God? Because some guy in ancient times saw the exact same thing everybody else saw and wrote it down in a so-called holy book does not make it proof of the rest of the crap in the book being true.

To think otherwise, is a religion. Why? Their is no evidence, their is only faith that dogs evolved from cats, or sheep evolved from wolf, or cats evolved from squirrels, or humans evolved from apes, or etc... purely faith based.
Put this another way:
1. We could soak a cat ovum in a pool of dog sperm and nothing will happen.
2. We could take a female dog in heat, with a herd of male sheep/goat/cats and no fertilization occurs.

purely faith based? I agree that evolution is just a theory, but it is strongly based on evidence. Because something isn't fully proven yet, does not make it a form of faith. As long as a person can give a rational reason for why he or she believes in it, then it's not based on faith. Then it's based on probability.

[waauw]

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

People believe the age of the earth is billions of years old. Why? Well that's what scientist are telling us. Why do scientist tell us that the earth is billions of years old?

There are several assumptions that are built upon to come to this conclusion. We'll address one today.

They see how much space debris is added to earth each year. This is a known and accepted fact that 80,000lbs of space debris is added to the earth each year. Now what the scientist do with that information is where there is a breakdown in discernment.

For they see all the layers of the earth. And at the current rate of debris being added to the earth, in deed it would take billions of years for all the layers to form. But there is a major problem with this belief/theory.

I don't think you understand what the theories are. The earth didn't grow year by year through little pieces of dust. According to the big bang theory there must've been a lot more debris flying out there at the start of our universe. In other words the earth didn't grow layer by layer. At the beginning it grew rather fast due to many large pieces of rock flying into each other, creating chemical reactions etc.

Also I do agree people rely on scientists based on some form of faith. However people are able to get the knowledge these scientists acquired. In other words people are able to learn these fields of science and actually reproduce many of the tests, calculations, etc. And as we live in a capitalist world people do actually continuesly check and re-check everything, because that's just what happens in free societies. Keeping this in mind there should've been tons of rational arguments and decent proof that scientists were wrong, however that is not always the case, especially with the theory of evolution. With the big bang theory that's a whole other story. There is tons of proof this might be wrong.

Petrified trees

Petrified trees are said to take 500,000 years to form. But for petrified trees to occur, there needs to be lots of soil covering, moisture, pressure and heat covering the trees in a relatively short period of time. Why a short period of time and what is a short period of time. Time as in not longer than a year to cover the tree. Why? if the time to cover the tree is longer than a year, the tree will decay and dissolve to a stump.

So what, why is this significant to debunking a billion year old earth? There are 100's of vertically standing petrified trees on multiple continents that transcend through 20 layers of soil. If it took millions of years for each layer of soil to build up, there would be no vertically standing petrified trees. For they would have long since decayed by the time a layer built up above it's stump. Therefore, vertically standing petrified trees are remnant byproducts of soil settling fast (within a year) covering the tree.

What event in earth's history fits a scenario with soil settling quicker covering trees in about a year, versus the current evolutionary model of soil building up over millions of years to cover the trees? The Biblical global flood. Genesis 7. Not only did it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, but huge water caverns burst violently open.Genesis 7:11 all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.... Now if water is bursting out of the earth, that water will be filled with clay, rock, dirt, sedimentary soil, silt, etc. And that water with high turbity (lots of earth mixed with it), the dirt will settle in layers according to density.

This explains why there are layers on the earth and why petrified trees transcend multiple layers. This is strong evidence that what the Bible describes is spot on accurate and give evidence of God since He is the author of the Bible. It's God's own testimony of what He did and what He requires of us.

Sincerely,
Dr. Lawrence

I think you need to learn more about the sciences outside of biology. You clearly have no grasp on Physics and Geology. Not all pieces of soil keep getting covered continuesly with new layers. Take a look for example at hills and mountains. Land continuesly gets washed off them by wind and rain. This process is called erosion.

On top of that a few hundred even a few thousand, tenthousand or hundredthousand is nothing compared to the man billions, trillions and even quadrillions of trees that might existed throughout the many era the earth has existed. In fact because of the large numbers of trees that have existed, the chances of one tree fossilizing is actually quite probably.

[tzor]

Evolution would not do that. Evolution does not allow for exclusivity of any kind of creature on earth. For with evolution there would be creatures evolving, devolving and with no changes (ie moving laterally).

I would invert the argument. In fact it might better explain the "origin of species" (as opposed to subspecies). Once the enzyme evolves to the point of incompatibility, interbreeding with previous strains cannot occur and significant genetic separation can occur in a relatively short time. Without this, changes could always be diluted by previous generations.

[BigBallinStalin]

give evidence of God since He is the author of the Bible.

And now I know you're just trolling. Nice try though.

Nordik, on behalf of CC, we admire your desire for an honest debate--even until the moment of truth (discovery of unviersalio's trolling/stupidity). For your efforts, please enjoy the following:


+1