The best evidence for Creationism

[Non sequitur]

Your proof?,

The Scientific, Logical, and Historical evidence I provided proves that God exist. want to object, then object with evidence, not your unreliable say so.

My proof for what?

You said your proof is The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning, Ontological, Morality, First Uncaused Cause.

So, let's look at your demonstrable, testable and falsifiable evidence.

Bible - book/claims cannot be tested
JC Death and Resurrection - claim/no evidence
ID - interpretation and purely subjective (you should look up the Dover trials)
IC - interpretation and purely subjective (you should look up the Dover trials)
Fine tuning - interpretation and purely subjective (you should look up the Dover trials)
Ontology - philosophy, interpretation and purely subjective
Morality - claim and assumption/no need for a "morality" to exist
First Uncaused Cause - assertion and argument from ignorance

Nobody is trying to "take your god down", but are trying to show you that these things you think are "evidence" DO NOT FALL UNDER WHAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS.

I can't help that you don't know what words mean, but you should look them up and start from there. NONE OF THOSE THINGS LISTED ARE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Use the correct words.

Instead of regurgitating and pasting stuff form sites, which comes across as a information/data dump, why don't you sick to one thing, first, before going to the next thing.


Let's do this. Start with your proof for "Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection". Just deal with that and nothing else, so we don't get off track.

Drop some scientific proof or evidence on me for that.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Allegedly. You haven't shown that. You haven't shown that my explanations are, as you say, incoherent. Get to work.

-Saying that rape can be justified when you know it cannot.

-Saying altruism is a "survival and gene passing" technique and offering no logical evidence to it except for word of mouth.

-assuming "evolution" is true when I showed it is an impossibility and couldn't have happened, you have yet to refute that.

-Saying "culture exaggerated" things without providing evidence.

Yes, it can. Genes dictate how our bodies develop, which includes our neurology. We are born with instincts and reflexes, including behavioural ones. No one has to teach a baby to recognise a face, our brains have evolved to do that automatically (that's why we see them in clouds and other natural objects). We don't need to be consciously aware of what our genes are doing, for them to do their work.

1, So you admit that genes are intelligent.

and 2, you didn't prove how genes could dictate my conscious and tell me what I ought and ought not to do. altruism, morality, and love aren't affected by chemicals, but a knowing, they are a conscious thing.

Sure it would - people are idiots

that is an unnecessary and exaggerated assumption.

, and just because something is repeated often, doesn't mean it's true. People think that, before Columbus, everyone thought the world was flat. Not true. Just because it's a common misconception, doesn't make it true. Likewise, "survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of the actual theory.

Proof?

As I demonstrated earlier, the Bible is replete with examples of God ordering rape. Your only retort was, "They're out of context". You refused to show how, which is more telling of your position than mine.

Nope, as I proved to you earlier you slandered The Bible, God. that was wrong.

That doesn't prove sex is sacred, it proves that we Westerners are squeamish about sex. It's cultural.

And why is it cultural? I'm really tired of your word of mouth, your word of mouth has no validity(as proven when you slandered), so provide evidence.

Err, it's not - it is, once again, cultural. Go to Africa and witness all the tribesmen and women going naked in the streets - according to you, this is morally wrong. According to them, it's how they've always done it.

Doesn't prove anything, doesn't make public nudity morally right or explain why public nudity is morally wrong, indecent. most of the world wears clothes and don't go out in public nude. that is a small part of the world. culture can't explain at all why we feel ashamed if we are nude in public.

same with the public nudity, who's going to deny that there are cultures out there that have no problem with public nudity, I'm not going to deny that, but that does that mean that it isn't morally wrong? of course not, public nudity is still in majority morally wrong. if it wasn't, it wouldn't be almost universal.

The only explanation/evidence to why public nudity became morally wrong is explained by God, when Adam and Eve sinned and were ashamed. "evolution" nor can culture explain why nudity is morally wrong.

if you think otherwise, please show how with evidence.

*sigh* The answers are there, but you skip right over them. Why do we have sex to reproduce? Because it vastly increases genetic variation in the offspring (compared to, say, parthenogenesis or asexual budding). This helps the offspring survive in changing environments.

Why does sex involve intimacy and pair-bonding? Because humans have a long gestational period, as well as a long child-rearing period. This makes having children resource-intensive - unlike some species, we can't mate, give birth, and leave them to it. We need to care for our young for a long time in order to properly procreate - and this requires the formation of bonds between the parents (as both have a genetic stake in the child), etc.

Nope that doesn't explain why the actual sex is intimate. what purpose would "evolution" give for sex being pleasurable and bond forming, it doesn't need to be, but it is. when people have sex, they do not always procreate. so "evolution" doesn't explain that. God can explain it, God made sex pleasurable to create a stronger bond in a loving relationship, that makes sense. you mean to tell me that some random cells decided to make sex pleasurable to form bonds? don't even try it.

"evolution" cannot explain our reproductive organs, sorry but it all fits perfectly and is intelligently designed. you mean to tell me that it's a coincidence that there is only man or woman and not any other "species", and that when man and woman bond that they could procreate. that would be 2 coincidences in a row. I'm tired of the coincidence excuses.

it is obviously and logically no coincidence, it was intelligently and purposefully designed.

God explains sex and procreation, Genesis 1:28, 2:24.

*sigh* You don't even both to read, do you?

Yes I did read what you wrote and it was completely wrong. all rape is wrong. you can't justify it, under no circumstances.

1) Humans count using a finite number of finite steps. That, you're right, won't get to to infinity.
2) Time, by contrast, doesn't need to use a finite number of finite steps. It could very well use an infinity of finite steps, or a finite number of infinite steps - both of those will get you to infinity.
3) You're still working under faulty mathematics, as evidenced by your phrase, "Count down from infinity..." - that makes no sense, as infinity is not something you start at. If I started at infinity, what, pray, would be the first number?

2. Nope still won't get me to the here and now. lets use the store example. the store is infinitely away, whether it has finite or infinite steps doesn't matter, the store is still infinitely away. no matter what I do I'll never get to that store.

3. See what you just admitted, you can't count down from infinity, your right, it doesn't make any sense because it is impossible. and since you can't count down from infinity to 1 because it would be impossible. you can't have an infinite past because it would be impossible to get to the present.

Err, even if causality did what you think it did (it doesn't), it doesn't prove or disprove the linearity of time.

Your Proof?, there is a beginning, thus time is linear.

'Uncaused' only means there wasn't some other event that caused it to be. That's it. That doesn't mean it couldn't cease to exist.

Nope uncaused means won't ever cease to exist, because if the uncaused cause ceased to exist, then nothing would exist. everything was created by the uncaused cause. and since the uncause cause, God is uncaused He has and always will exist, the universe has no effect on God.

Then prove it's God, and not some inanimate phenomenon.

Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning, Morality, The Bible, Ontological, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, the first uncaused cause is, God.

I have provided the evidence above that it adds up and proves, the first uncaused cause is God. if you want to object, provide the same amount or more evidence(not assumptions but evidence) supporting your claim that it was "nothing" or it was an "accident", and I will refute it.

Use evidence and not assumptions. you assume this earth is an "accident" then prove it with evidence.

I provide evidence not assumptions, that this earth is not some accident but made on purpose by God. that alone makes the "accident" or "nothing" assumption null and void.

Then present your logical syllogism.

Prove it.

So I ask when you exactly mean by 'nothing greater' - and your answer is 'nothing greater'. What a fantastically enlightening response

Because that's the answer. if you use logic, then you'll know that everything was created by the first uncaused cause, so by default the uncaused cause, God is which no greater can be conceived. is the universe uncaused? nope, thus it is already lesser than the uncaused cause by default. the uncaused cause, God bought the universe and everything in it into existence because He can do it. the universe is less than God by default.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

SBC, I've already said I'm not debating someone else. Use your own words. If I had the time or the inclination to rebut this wall of text, I'd do it over at Godandscience.org.

Doesn't matter who the work is from, if you don't want to go to the website, I'll just post it here.

From, Godandscience.org:

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning
by Rich Deem

Introduction
I recently received an e-mail claiming that most scientists do not believe that the Big Bang represents the beginning of the universe. Other visitors to the site have made similar claims in the past, so I thought it would be a good idea to set the record straight about the origin of the universe. Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed before the Big Bang, I must make it clear that they present no evidence for this belief, since none exists! This kind of belief is metaphysical in nature as indicated in an article from the The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.®:

"Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."1

The universe's beginning
Such metaphysical beliefs are often incorporated in popular books about cosmology, although it is seldom stated that those beliefs are without any evidence. As much as atheists would love to get rid of a beginning to the universe, it is apparent that it did begin to exist some time in the past. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem2 shows that there is no way to get rid of a beginning to any universe that is characterized by cosmic expansion (Hav > 0). Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning. So, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem eliminates the eternal inflation model, which is based upon an ever expanding multiverse. Cyclic universe models fail because the entropy of a collapsing and expanding universe would render all parts of the universe as thermally dead within a few cycles (obviously, an eternal number of cycles is more than a few!). The cosmic egg model fails because the egg could not have existed forever, since quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time.3 Here are some quotes from university websites by scientists who know that the universe had a beginning:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture.
Conclusion
The data from cosmology shows that the universe had a beginning, when space, time, matter and energy exploded out from the cosmic event known as the Big Bang. The Bible tell us that God "spreads out the heavens" (an expanding universe)4 and that the visible parts were made from the invisible (Hebrews 11:3),5 both ideas supported by modern cosmology. Is this why "atheists" are so anxious to try to get rid of a beginning to the universe?

No, actually, you haven't. You only ever asserted that it exists, and I preemptively explained how the common examples (the eye, etc) don't do what you think they did. You never actually gave any examples yourself. If you disagree, then cite the post number, and I'll go over them.

I did, and I used darwinismrefuted.com, you have yet to reply to that. post #537

As I said, I'm on CF, not darwinismrefuted.com. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go about debunking another website - I'm here to engage in a dialogue with you.

*sigh* Once again, I'm not debating someone else's work.

Oh please, it doesn't matter how long it is or where I get the information from, as long as I'm refuting your argument. it doesn't matter who's work it is. that is just excuses.

Err, no, you haven't. You're argument thus far consists only of, "I don't like moral subjectivity, therefore, I'll go with moral objectivity!".

Nope, I showed morals are obligated, by a Higher Power, who has authority over humans, and that shows that morals are from God. and that morals are an ought or ought not to thing, not reactions.

I want to focus on this. Do explain what this 'numeric code' is that proves the Bible. In your own words.

Just can't be a coincidence. and no I don't have to use my own words,

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

The Bible code (Hebrew: צפנים בתנ"ך&#8206, also known as the Torah code, is a purported set of secret messages encoded within the text Hebrew Bible and describing prophesies and other guidance regarding the future. This hidden code has been described as a method by which specific letters from the text can be selected to reveal an otherwise obscured message. Though Bible codes have been postulated and studied for centuries, the subject has been popularized in modern times by Michael Drosnin's book The Bible Code.
Many examples have been documented in the past. One cited example is that by taking every 50th letter of the Book of Genesis starting with the first taw, the Hebrew word "torah" is spelled out. The same happens in the Book of Exodus. Modern computers have been used to search for similar patterns and more complex variants, and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal in 1994. Proponents hold that it is exceedingly unlikely such sequences could arise by chance, while skeptics and opponents hold that such sequences do often arise by chance, as demonstrated on other Hebrew and English texts.[citation needed]

So the Bible's later chapters have reference to the Bible's earlier chapters. You know what other books do that? The Harry Potter series.

Again with the insults, stop insulting and provide, evidence. this shows that you don't know much about The Bible, The scriptures to comment on them.

The Old Testament predicted Jesus Christ about 500 years before He was crucified and Resurrected.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

No, it proves that they believed it. There are also Buddhist martyrs, Muslim martyrs, etc - do they prove their religions? No, of course not: martyrdom just proves how much you believe something, not whether it's actually true.

from winteryknight.wordpress.com :

Is there a difference between Christian martyrs and Muslim martyrs?

I found an interesting post on the Truth in Religion & Politics blog that asks and answers the question.

Excerpt:

What is so unique about the earliest disciples of Jesus being martyred for their claim Jesus was raised from the dead? Many believers of various religious systems–Muslims for example–die and commit suicide regularly for what they believe to be true. Christian apologists arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection use the fact that Jesus’ disciples and subsequent followers allowed themselves to be killed, without recanting their conviction that Jesus was raised from the dead. Is this line of reasoning valid? Does the fact that others die willingly for their religious faith undercut the veracity of the argument for the Resurrection?

The most important aspect of this detail is the historical proximity of the disciples to the event. The disciples were contemporaries of Jesus and the Resurrection event. They were witnesses to Jesus’ life; witnesses to His death; and claimed to be witnesses of His being alive after having been buried.

If we claim the Resurrection was a story invented by the disciples, we have to also have to claim they died for an event they knew they invented themselves.

[...]Keep in mind I am not arguing for modern or even 2nd century Christian martyrs as evidence, but rather the first disciples who claimed to be actual witnesses to the events themselves. Muslims who die in suicide attacks are not first hand witnesses to Allah, or miracles of Allah. Mohammad did not perform miracles, he claimed only to be a prophet. Given this aspect of Islam, Mohammad’s cohorts were getting their theological insight second-hand from someone who claimed to speak for God. They are not in parallel circumstances as the first martyred disciples who claimed to see with their own eyes the events for which they were killed. Muslims willingly die for what someone told them was true, and in fact they do believe the message of Mohammad is true, but they lack first hand experience of his claims; they could not necessarily have known his claims were false. Jesus’ disciples claimed to be eye witnesses to the Resurrection, they would be in the position to know their own story was false.

Lots of people die for their beliefs, but only the first century Christian martyrs were in a position to know whether they saw Jesus after his death or not.

Lewis' dichotomy is a famous example of faulty logic: by arbitrarily restricting the options, he forces a conclusion. In reality, there are other options (for instance, Jesus was right about some things and wrong about others).

Show evidence.

I have another: "It didn't happen". There were allegedly hundreds of eye-witness accounts, yet none of them thought to write anything down. There were contemporary historians and archivists of religious and political movements at exactly the right time who, surprisingly, never mention any of these miraculous (or even mundane) events.

1, If they didn't write anything, doesn't change the fact that it happened, 2, How do you know that they didn't write anything down? this happened about 2,000 years ago. we are lucky to have the 4 Gospels, extra Biblical sources, Historical Accuracy and Jesus Christ Shroud.

You mean the Shroud of Turin? The one that was proven years ago to be a Medaeival fake?

Your proof?

there is no evidence of forgery. they document it as "a mystery", you know well and good how the supernatural image got there, only by Jesus Christ, The Son of God. The Shroud of Jesus Christ is your evidence that supernatural exist.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

My proof for what?

You said your proof is The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning, Ontological, Morality, First Uncaused Cause.

So, let's look at your demonstrable, testable and falsifiable evidence.

Bible - book/claims cannot be tested

Of course no Historical event can be tested, you want me to observe a past event in a lab or something? When a Historical Event has Historical Evidence, it is accurate. The Bible has Historical evidence.

JC Death and Resurrection - claim/no evidence

Posted in previous posts.

ID - interpretation and purely subjective (you should look up the Dover trials)

IC - interpretation and purely subjective (you should look up the Dover trials)

Refute my previous posts where I used darwinismrefuted.com to prove ID and IC. and no one has yet to refute me on Intelligent Design or Irreducible complexity coherently.

stop relying on the dover trial as an objection, just because the judge committed judicial activism, by no means make them right. if you could coherently object to Intelligent design and/or Irreducible complexity please do so, and I'll refute your objection.

Please give evidence of an Intelligent Irreducibly complex design, that doesn't require a designer and happened randomly and accidentally, you won't be able to.

Fine tuning - interpretation and purely subjective (you should look up the Dover trials)

No, Fine Tuning is fact, the evidence is posted in my previous posts.

Ontology - philosophy, interpretation and purely subjective
Morality - claim and assumption/no need for a "morality" to exist

If morality didn't exist you wouldn't be following it. it exist because it is obligated, it is our duty to follow them.

Morals exist, thus God exist.


Where's your proof against the Ontological?

First Uncaused Cause - assertion and argument from ignorance

Your proof? I'm really getting tired of assumptions, please counter my evidence with evidence, not assumptions.

Nobody is trying to "take your god down", but are trying to show you that these things you think are "evidence" DO NOT FALL UNDER WHAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS.

I can't help that you don't know what words mean, but you should look them up and start from there. NONE OF THOSE THINGS LISTED ARE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning is scientific evidence.

The Bible Accurate Historical accounts of approximately 40 different witnesses of God with no contradiction, no error, and backed with by Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, and extra-Biblical sources.

First Uncaused Cause as explained in previous posts is God.

Morality as shown is from God.

Use the correct words.

Instead of regurgitating and pasting stuff form sites, which comes across as a information/data dump, why don't you sick to one thing, first, before going to the next thing.

Doesn't matter where I get the information from, my words or not. stop using that lame excuse. as long as it proves my point, it is good.

Let's do this. Start with your proof for "Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection". Just deal with that and nothing else, so we don't get off track.

Drop some scientific proof or evidence on me for that.

The Shroud of Jesus Christ. The Bible, Extra Biblical sources, Early Christians.

Now, where is your evidence for "atheism"? provide evidence for it, thing is there isn't.

"atheism" doesn't exist. if it did you would have evidence for it.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

But these are not scientific facts, or you would not be here.

You are making the claim, you provide the scientific evidence to support it, not opinions of historians.

So let me get this straight, you want scientific evidence on a past event? you want scientific evidence that is observable on a well documented Historical event?

I can't provide observable evidence that I just had a conversation with a friend, but I can provide witnesses.

I can't provide physical evidence that any historical event happened, I can't go back in time and show it to you, but I can provide Historical evidence for a Historical event and scientific evidence from the event.

since you want scientific evidence from the Historical event, it is The Shroud of Jesus Christ.

ID was tossed out of court back at Dover.

yep, the dover trial, Judicial activism.

Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?

from unmaskingevolution.com:

The Anthropic Principle

(1) Evolutionists faced with this evidence did not like the idea that it pointed to an intelligent designer. There had to be a more 'logical' solution.

"[W]e have found Nature to be constructed upon certain immutable foundation stones, which we call fundamental constants of Nature ..... The fortuitous nature of many of their numeric values is a mystery that cries out for a solution." [J.D. Barrow & F.J. Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (paperback revised edition), Oxford University Press: New York, 1988 p:31]
(2) The evolutionists answer to this quandary was to invent the Anthropic Principle, a principle based on the need to justify their preconceived belief in evolution, rather than on physical evidence.

"The universe has the properties we observe today because if its earlier properties had been much different, we would not be here as observers now. The principle underlying this method of cosmological analysis has been named the Anthropic Principle." [Scientific American, Vol. 245, No. 6, 1981 p:154] (see also S.W. Hawking "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes", Bantam Books: New York, 1988 p:124)
(3) The Anthropic Principle is based around the logic that humans are able to observe the existing universe. The definition of the principle above can be redefined as - 'The universe is what it is, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to see it'.

(4) The Anthropic Principle is not science. Evolutionists created it from reason, by twisting logic - it is an illusion.

(5) The principle can be stated in three distinct ways - as a tautological, a metaphysical, & a lame formulation.

(a) The tautological Anthropic Principle - "The universe has survival (observable) properties because we survive (and observe)." [W.J. ReMine p:61]

i/ This statement is a tautology because it is circular. It masquerades as though it is conveying information, but it explains nothing. "Why do we survive? Answer: Because the universe has survivable properties. Why do we know the universe has survivable properties? Answer: Because we survive. It is a circular argument." [W.J. ReMine p:62]

ii/ As a tautology this statement is always true, and can never be untrue.

iii/ This tautology is not a scientific statement because it doesn't explain anything, nor is it testable. (see H.R. Pagels, The Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1985 p:37)

(b) The metaphysical Anthropic Principle - "There are an infinitude of other universes having properties unlike the known universe; almost all those other universes are unsuitable for life; therefore 'nature' on the average has no special favour towards life or humankind." [W.J. ReMine p:62]

i/ Expressing the Anthropic Principle in this way infers that the existence of our universe has been simply the result of random chance, not design.

ii/ Evolutionists mostly avoid using this formulation of the principle because "other universes" are metaphysical, they are unobservable, and make the definition sound like non-science.

"The Anthropic Principle is misnamed, which helps to conceal its true nature. The name misdirects your attention onto man. It should be called the Many Universes scenario." [W.J. ReMine p:63]

iii/ Scientists can see the metaphysical nature of "other universes" and use logic to get rid of them. To do this they twist words, creating the impression that the Anthropic Principle is true, and that it logically explains the universe's design.

"n what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in another universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory." [S.W. Hawking "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes", Bantam Books: New York, 1988 p:125]

(c) The lame Anthropic Principle - "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so." [J.D. Barrow & F.J. Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (paperback revised edition), Oxford University Press: New York, 1988 p:16]

i/This lame definition combines the other two definitions, and so fails to explain anything. Often this is a deliberate attempt to avoid a helpful explanation by using long, convoluted, verbose statements.

ii/ A lame definition can create an illusion of correctness in such a way that a critic can fail to see any fault in it.

(6) The Anthropic Principle is usually expressed as the tautology because it is simple, and irrefutable. Any explanation of the principle is derived from the metaphysical version. Evolutionists therefore switch between the two versions to create an illusion that the Anthropic Principle is both true and explainable. This is the real power of the illusion.



Conclusion

(1) The Anthropic Principle is a contrived definition which evolutionists use to interpret the physical data, while avoiding the acknowledgement of a creator.

(2) The Anthropic Principle is not a scientific principle because a tested for "other universes" cannot be conducted.

Me.

You showed no such thing.

Yes I did, read my previous posts.

Even if there were objective morals, it does not prove that any deities are still required.

Then please explain who other than God has the authority over all humans?

Morals are obligated and it is all of humanity's duty to follow those morals, thus they are commanded, thus they they need a commander that overrules all of humanity, that is God.

Show me specifically where you demonstrated that the 1) the universe had a beginning 2) it required a cause 3) that cause was by necessity a deity of some sort 4) it was your deity.

1,2,3,4) post #503

You do not get to dictate the definitions of words, so your argument is dismissed.

Whether you define "atheism" as a nonsensical assertion or "lack" of belief, it still doesn't exist, it still has no proof, no evidence. if it does by all means provide it because I know it doesn't.

As you are just repeating yourself here, so will I: But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.

You are incorrect. Lack of belief does not require justification.

Wait a minute, you ask me to provide evidence to prove that Christianity is the truth, and I do it. I use evidence that proves, God exist.

but when I ask you to provide evidence for "atheism" or evidence to justify a "lack" of belief or "disbelief" you won't do it?

This is nonsensical. No matter how you try, attempting to reword the definition of "atheism" will not poof your deity into existence.

Again, whether your definition of "atheism" is an nonsensical assertion, "lack" of belief, "disbelief", or whatever, provide proof for it.

if you could provide evidence for "atheism", you would have done it already, but since you can't, it doesn't exist.

As the request is nonsensical.

No, I am being skeptical.

Of what? there is substantial evidence for God.

That would be off-topic to the thread. Search my posts if you want.

I take offense at your insult, even with your attempt to reword it. If you do it again, it will be reported.

I take offense at your accusation. where did I insult you? provide evidence. if anyone is rewording what I wrote it is you, I wrote "atheism", not "atheist".

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules.

And I have, and I have not insulted anyone.

I have done no such thing. My comments are directed at your arguments.

Who's accusing you? I meant the other guy, W_child who slandered.

No, all you have done is shown that you presuppose the existence of your deity, prior to examining your 'evidence'.

Proof?

Who are you to dicate yes or no answers from me, when you refuse to acknowledge a basic premise such as "atheism" does not make a positive claim, therefore requires no evidence to support it?

Dictate? you don't have to answer the question if you do not want to. but since you refuse to answer the question, and you have every right not to. then you show that "lack" of belief doesn't exist. if it did you would easily answer the yes or no question.

Positive or a Negative doesn't matter you have to provide evidence.

Example would be, there is evidence that person A is committed a crime, person A's lawyer objects and has to provide evidence that he didn't commit the crime, if the lawyer cannot provide the evidence then it is proven that person A isn't innocent. if he was he would have evidence that justifies his innocence.

I could provide evidence for God, for Christianity. why can't you provide evidence for "atheism"?

Provide a robust, scientifically testable definition for this "God"; we test it, then I will provide an answer.

The universe. His creation. God has given us substantial evidence for his existence. your "lack" of belief is unjustified unless you can provide good evidence for it.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I think you are overlooking one particular fact concerning evolution. Most arguments against evolution generally focus on the so called "transitional fossil". Of course, within that problem is the question of what a transitional fossil is. First, there is the trained professional's view that deals with the specifics of taxonomy and various other related fields of science, and Second, there is the layman's view which is expressed almost entirely from views of other laypeople. Of course there are a hand full of people with scientific backgrounds from the opposing opinion, but none seem to have any professional training if any of the fields in which they criticize. In other words, professional expertise compared to biased opinion.

Nevertheless, that is not the main point I wish to make, although it is quite relevant and significant.

For the moment, let's forget about transitional fossils and connecting the dots. I want you to think about the geologic column. Therefore, layers of strata of many different types layered from oldest on bottom to youngest on top. With the exception different types of non-conformaties where strata folded or contains various types of faults, the geologic column of strata is not compromised.

Now look at those layers of strata and notice that the oldest and simplest fossils are in the bottom layers of strata. As one moves up through the geologic column, one begins to see more and more diverse and complex fossils. How do you explain that with out some sort of evolution occurring? If those life forms had not evolved, where did all the new life come from? Why don't we find all of the life form throughout the geologic column? If life had not evolved, would we not expect to find rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata or human fossils along side dinosaur fossils.

How can you explain the geologic column without evolution? And please understand that I have asked you a scientific question from a scientific perspective, not a biblical one. Thank you.

From Creation.com

The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?
by John Woodmorappe

It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted—clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.

Does the geologic column exist? If so, to what extent? With geological periods and epochs extending for hundreds of millions of years the column clearly contradicts the biblical time scale. Thus for many people, the geological column is an obstacle to their accepting a recent Creation and a world-wide Flood as recorded in Scripture.

Creationists have shown that the geological column presents no problem to Flood geology. It is nothing more than a hypothetical classification scheme based on selected rock outcrops in Europe, and used flexibly to classify rocks around the world.1,2 Anti-creationists have responded that the column is valid, having been built up in a thoroughly logical way long before the theory of evolution was invented, and that many of those who contributed to its building were creationists.3 One unanswerable argument for the hypothetical character of the column is that nowhere in the world does the complete column exist. The majority of the geological periods are missing in the field. Although anti-creationists usually have not disputed that the column is mostly missing, they have argued that we should not expect the entire column to exist in the field. Erosion, they argue, is why the complete column is never found.3 Hence they claim that rocks deposited during one period would be eroded away during a later period. So, while those defending the column have invented ad hoc reasons to explain the missing geologic periods, they did not deny the hypothetical nature of the column.

Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists.4 Some of these claims have been made on the Internet and, as an active creationist scientist, I don’t have the time to fan the windmills of debate on this totally unregulated, unrefereed medium. Anyone can say anything on it, no matter how untrue. However, the claims made on this medium should not be ignored completely. We must provide responses from time to time so the critics and their readers don’t think their claims are unanswerable.

It is on the Internet that a number of geographical localities have been nominated where it has been asserted that the entire column is actually superposed period upon period in the one place.5 This is one of the few intellectual-sounding arguments on the anti-creationist sites that some people may mistakenly take seriously. Thus I address the bogus arguments of some of these articles relating to the geologic column. I want to examine these claims closely, first correcting common misrepresentations of creationist literature on this subject, then delving into the geologic issues involved.

How is the Geologic Column Defined?
Anti-creationists have distorted what creationists have actually written about the geologic column, and created one huge ‘straw man’ of creationist research on global stratigraphy. Others have cited one or two popular-level creationist books and misrepresented them as the definitive thought of all creationists. For example, Glenn Morton writes in his Internet essay, The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota:

‘A detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota.’5
Morton’s claim is very misleading. The unsuspecting visitor to Morton’s website gets only a small part of the story. Yes, Morris and Parker,1 whom Morton attacks, are not strictly accurate when they say there is no place on earth where all ten geologic systems are superposed. (I combine the Mississippian and the Pennsylvanian into the Carboniferous system, and omit the surficial Quarternary deposits.) However, it is wrong to state or imply that most creationist scholars believe this to be true. Back in 1968, Harold Clark6 made it clear that there are many places on the earth with most or all of the ‘complete’ column in place. In 1981, I re-examined this fact, and quantified it.2 More on this later.

But does the presence of all ten superposed Phanerozoic systems positively establish the reality of the geologic column? Hardly! Yet Morton (and others who repeat what he says) present it to their readers as if it did. As a start, let us examine more fully what Morris and Parker actually said about the geologic column:

‘The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column.

That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities.’ 7 (Emphasis in original.)

Figure 1. The presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a 'stack' is not the only issue concerning the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles). The column to the right represents to the same scale the thickness of sedimentary rock in North Dakota. Clearly the geologic column is far from complete in North Dakota.
Note that Morris and Parker are not saying that the presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a ‘stack’ is the only issue defining the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. What they are saying, as is seen in the part usually not quoted by anti-creationists, is that nowhere on earth is the geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period. It is time anti-creationists stop misrepresenting Morris and Parker.

As for Morton, although he mentions the thickness-of-sediment issue, it is in a completely distorted manner:

‘In point of fact Morris and Parker define the geologic column in a silly fashion. There is no place on earth that has sediments from every single day since the origin of the earth. No geologist would require this level of detail from the geological column.’5
Morton’s comments have no semblance to reality. Creationists do not say that every single day’s deposits must be preserved! The fact is that Morris and Parker are not talking about a little of the daily sediment being missing. If we read the Morris and Parker quote again, we can see that the 100- or 200-mile column is not the presumed product of daily sedimentation. Rather, the 100- to 200-mile column represents the sum of the thickest sections from the field of each of the ten Phanerozoic systems and/or their major components.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column! It remains primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a textbook orthodoxy. So, although there are places where lithologies referable to all ten of the Phanerozoic systems can actually be seen superposed, creationists remain more than justified in highlighting the essential non-existence of the standard geologic column. And we have not even touched such matters as overlapping fossil ranges, non-superposed index fossils, and many other things, which expose the non-reality of the geologic column. That is, most fossils found are for only one geologic system (e.g. Devonian), and most index fossils do not actually superpose at the same locality. In other words, most locations with Devonian fishes are not overlain by rocks bearing Cretaceous ammonites, and most locations with Cretaceous ammonites do not overlie localities with Devonian fishes. The same can be said for all the index fossils of all of the geologic systems.

Can the Geologic Column be Found?
Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did.8 This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,9 as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article.10

So, why did I do the work? As I said on the first page of the article, the aim was to measure the degree of incompleteness of the geologic column. That is why I set up the maps, tables, and graphs to show the percentages of the earth’s surface that have various combinations of the ten Phanerozoic systems in place. I thus had considered the sedimentary Phanerozoic systems not only as single, unrelated entities, but also in terms of stratigraphically consecutive combinations.

There are other ways in which Glenn Morton’s criticism of my work is without foundation. Morton11 has led his readers to believe that I had only mentioned Poland and Bolivia, and that, furthermore, I was claiming that those are the only locations on earth with the ten geologic systems in place. Actually, I specifically mentioned other potential places with the ‘complete’ column (e. g., Cuba, Indonesia, and the Himalayas).12 Morton is saying nothing new at his website when he cites additional locations where the ‘complete’ column is found and shows them on a visually-attractive world map. Note that most if not all of the locations that Morton mentions can be found on Map 15 of my article.13 These locations appear as white spots on Map 15, and include such places as northwest Russia, Siberia, the Caspian-Sea region, parts of China, the Williston Basin in the western USA, Bulgaria, Chile, Tunisia, central Mexico, and Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan. It is of course, possible that some smaller locations with ten superposed geologic systems have been lost in the level of resolution afforded by the Alexander Ronov et al. maps used in my study.

But where does Morton get his information? He cites as his source the work of the Robertson Group, a London-based oil-consulting company. I have been unable to secure a copy of this work, as it is not listed in either WorldCat or GEOREF. Thus I cannot comment on the accuracy of this source of information, nor discern whether or not its portrayal of sedimentary basins is overly schematic. Evidently, Morton is citing a proprietary source not subject to public scrutiny. But let us, for the sake of argument, grant the complete validity of what the Robertson Group states, as represented by Morton. Even then the claims are overly generalised. For example, Morton’s does not say how given strata had been ‘dated’. Which ‘geologic ages’ had been identified according to the faunal content of the strata, and which had simply been ‘guesstimated’ according to lithological similarity and/or comparable stratigraphic position with faunally-dated sedimentary formations at adjacent locations? All this is moot, however. As noted earlier, since most of the sediment is missing, Morton’s arguments are completely specious even if the Robertson Group work is thoroughly accurate and not excessively schematic in its depiction of the world’s sedimentary basins.

Finally, the number of different locations on earth with the ‘complete’ column is completely irrelevant. After all, regardless of whether there are 10 or 20 or even 50 locations on earth where all ten geologic systems are superposed, there is no escaping the fact that this still totals less than 1% of the earth’s surface. Even this 1% does not include ocean basins. When the ocean basins are included (none of which have more than a few of the ten geologic systems in place), the global figure falls to less than 0.4%.14

If this were not enough, the situation gets worse when we include the faunal basis for separating and correlating the lithologies into ‘geologic periods’. As mentioned earlier, only a small fraction of index fossils are superposed at the same location on Earth. This has been documented in my Diluviological Treatise.15 Therefore, all things considered, scientific creationists are more than justified in concluding that the standard evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column is, in fact, essentially non-existent.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Anti-Logic—“1% is More Significant Than 99%”
To rescue the situation, anti-creationists have argued that the 1% of the earth’s surface where the lithologies of all ten geologic periods can be found simultaneously is somehow more significant than the remaining 99% where they are not superposed. Consider the contortions of facts and logic this entails. Morton makes an enormous leap when he claims the 1% means the geologic column exists.16 Of course, as noted earlier, this misrepresents Morris and Parker, myself, and other creationists. And, again, it completely ignores the fact that only 16/100 to 16/200 of the column are actually present in any one spot—not to mention the palaeontological factors which, as discussed above, make the geologic column even more artificial than appears at first.

Glenn Morton also made the extravagant claim that the finding of ten superposed Phanerozoic systems is ‘an important prediction’. Actually, as everyone who has studied the development of the geologic column knows, the geologic systems were constructed on an ad hoc, deductive basis. Nowhere in the 19th century geologic literature, at least to my knowledge, is there a hint of a claim that an eventual find of ten superposed systems is a necessary phenomenon for validating the (presumed) reality of the geologic-age system. If such a citation from the early geologic writings exists, I would gladly be corrected. Until and unless such a citation can be produced however, I think that we best treat this claim with the proverbial grain of salt.

Let us consider this claim in a different way. Assume for a moment that it had been established that there was no geographic location on earth where ten geologic systems were found superposed in a quasi-complete column. Would the failure of this supposed ‘prediction’ have caused uniformitarians to reject the validity of their geologic column? Not likely! The claim that finding ten superposed geologic systems is ‘an important prediction’ is clearly false.

Some anti-creationists have calculated the extreme improbability of ten such systems ever being deposited by chance during the Flood. Such a calculation is patently absurd, because creationist scientists do not believe that the order of fossils in the stratigraphic record (and hence the ten-named geologic periods) is entirely (or even primarily) the result of chance processes during the Universal Deluge. And, of course, any mixing of organisms during the Flood has already been accounted for by evolutionists by such things as long-ranging fossils (which are thereby not used as index fossils), and ‘reworking’ rationalizations, etc.

Measuring Lithological Succession Globally
Some readers of both my Essential Nonexistence and Diluviological Treatise articles10 have questioned the relevance of overlays to measure the lithological succession of Phanerozoic systems (in the former), as well as the succession of types of fossils (in the latter). Their objections revolve around the fact that strata are three-dimensional and interlayered with other strata.

To begin with, I had taken the three-dimensionality of the strata into account by tacitly accepting, as a given, the superposition of lithologies ascribed to different geologic periods. That is, when I considered a map of Ordovician strata and one with Cambrian strata, I assumed that, where the two systems occur in the same geographic locality, Ordovician strata always overlie Cambrian strata (and never the reverse).

As for the lateral continuity of strata, it had been argued that, since strata overlie each other not only directly, but also through a series of overlaps (much as the tiles of a gabled roof), therefore strata should be counted as stratigraphically superposed. This would be analogous to the uppermost tile on a gabled roof being reckoned successionally higher not merely over the immediately-underlying tile, but also over all of the successively-shingled tiles going down to the base of the roof. However, strata change in character laterally, and so cannot be treated as tiles on a roof. This is why long-distance correlations of strata should not empirically count as superposition.17 I later addressed this perennial objection in more detail in my Clarifications Related to the ‘Reality’ of the Geologic Column article,18 focusing on such things as so-called time-transgressive lithologies, so-called facies changes, etc. That is, presumed horizons of geologic time cut across lithologies, and, reciprocally, different adjacent lithologies can be ascribed to the same geologic age. Thus, for instance, the same sandstone can be partly Cambrian and partly Ordovician. Conversely, a Cambrian sandstone can grade laterally and/or vertically into a Cambrian shale. Since lithologies are not consistent with presumed units of geologic time, their shingling relationships cannot count as an evidence for time-based stratigraphic successions.


Figure 2. It has been argued that strata should be counted as stratigraphically superposed because strata can overlie each other through a series of overlaps like the tiles of a gabled roof. However, strata change in character laterally over long distances and the horizons of supposed geologic time cut across lithologies. So regional overlapping cannot be empirically counted as superposition.
It was for these, and similar, reasons, that I had concluded that the interlayering of strata, and lateral continuity of the same, do not constitute independent evidences for the validity of the geologic column. This fact also implies that the series of overlays, as performed for the previous study, is in fact a valid approach for assessing the degree of the non-existence of the geologic column. So does the superposition of fossils instead of the superposition of time-designated strata.

Saving an Old Earth—Non-Deposition and Erosion
‘Missing’ geologic periods are routinely blamed on non-deposition and/or erosion, and I have already exposed the circular reasoning used behind such premises.19 However, since these arguments come up over and over again, I will deal with them once more.

Periodically, we also hear the claim that ‘missing’ geologic periods are expected because the earth was never ‘depositional’ everywhere at the same time. After all, it is said, even today the entire earth’s surface is not undergoing deposition of sediment.20 Such arguments, while superficially logical, can only beg the question about the earth’s age and the ability or otherwise of sedimentary environments to prograde all over the earth within a given long-time period. Without first assuming the validity of the geologic column, and using it as a tool to find times as well as areas of non-deposition, there is no way of independently knowing anything about ostensible long-term areal trends in sedimentary deposition. That is, without the complete geologic column as a reference, who can possibly know how much of the Earth’s surface has been depositional simultaneously in any period of several tens of millions of years (i. e. the average duration of a geologic period)?

Thus, having used the geologic column to determine the geographic regions of non-deposition, the uniformitarians then complete the circle of reasoning by arguing that non-deposition accredits the 99%-incomplete geologic column. Clearly they are simply presupposing the great antiquity of the earth because that is the answer they want. An analogous line of reasoning holds for the presumed removal, by erosion, of previously-deposited strata. Let us now more closely examine how the claims of ‘missing’ rock do in fact beg the question. As Watson points out:

‘Is it circular to think of a process that would remove some rock, and then to use the absence of the rocks to argue that the process was in operation in the past? No, not if the argument is coupled with further evidence that the rocks were in fact once there.’21
In most locations on earth, there is no independent evidence for non-deposition and/or erosion of presumably once-existing strata. Usually, erosional removal is simply assumed for a given geographic region because rocks assigned to one geologic period (or more) are regionally absent.


Figure 3. (After Steven A. Austin, Ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, p. 43, 1994). Four types of field evidences for periods of erosion and nondeposition:
The nonconformity where stratified rock rests on nonstratified rock
The angular unconformity where stratified rock rests on tilted and eroded strata
The disconformity where parallel strata are present below and above but where discordance of bedding is evident
The paraconformity where no discordance of bedding is noticeable. Paraconformities are proposed between strata for the sole reason that appropriate index fossils are absent from the intervening geologic system. Paraconformities usually show no evidence of subaerial exposure or the supposed millions of years between strata.
It is also important to realise that the maps in the Essential Nonexistence article22 already account, to a considerable extent, for those locations on earth where there is independent geologic evidence of the erosional removal of rock. After all, these maps are not only lithologic maps but also paleogeographic ones. The thinnest category of sedimentary lithologies (0–100 m) on the originally-redrawn Ronov et al. maps thus includes the onetime coverage, by sedimentary rocks, of geographic regions for which only outliers exist as evidence of the former coverage. For example, the Ronov et al. maps show the City of Chicago covered by Devonian and Carboniferous rock. This is in spite of the fact that there are no Devonian and Carboniferous strata underlying Chicago at present, with the exception of a few inliers, such as the Devonian and Carboniferous ones in the Des Plaines Disturbance. These in fact demonstrate that the two systems had in fact once covered all of Chicago but had subsequently been eroded away. Thus, the maps, which I have used in the previous study, already account for the empirical evidences of rocks of a given ‘age’ once having been present in geographic regions beyond their present regular occurrence.

Beyond this, with the exception of angular unconformities, there is little or no solid independent evidence for an erosional removal of once-deposited sedimentary systems. Thus, following the statements by Watson above, most of the ‘missing’ ages, which are the rule for the earth, are in fact based upon circular reasoning.

Conclusions
There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.

Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.

Thirdly, even where the ten periods have been assigned, the way in which they were assigned can be quite subjective. It is a well known fact, for example, that many unfossiliferous Permian rocks are ‘dated’ as such solely because they happen to be sandwiched between faunally-dated Carboniferous and faunally-dated Triassic rocks. Without closer examination, it is impossible to determine how many of the ‘ten Phanerozoic systems superposed’ have been assigned on the basis of index fossils (by which each of the Phanerozoic systems have been defined) and how many have been assigned by indirect methods such as lithological similarity, comparable stratigraphic level, and schematic depictions. Clearly, if the periods in these locations were assigned by assuming that the geological column was real, then it is circular reasoning to use the assigned ten periods to argue the reality of the column.

Finally, the geological column is a hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading. A number of standard explanations are used to account for missing geological periods, including erosion and non-deposition. Clear field evidence, such as unconformities, is not necessarily needed before these explanations are invoked. Similarly a range of standard explanations is used to account for the fossils when their order is beyond what the column would predict. These include reworking, stratigraphic leaking, and long-range fossils. Even if all ten periods of the column had never been assigned to one local stratigraphic section anywhere on the earth, the concept of the geological column would still be accepted as fact by conventional uniformitarian geologists.

To the diluviologist this means, of course, that only the local succession has to be explained by Flood-related processes. Very seldom do all ten geologic systems have to be accounted for in terms of Flood deposition.

There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

And yes W_child did take The Bible out of context and slander. refer back to my post #540

W_child referenced Deuteronomy 22:23-24, took it out of context, threw an accusation and left out the very next verse Deuteronomy 22:25 where rape is condemned. he could've added the very next verse, 25 but didn't. that makes it pretty obvious to me that it was on purpose. it was slanderous.

1, Still haven't gotten any evidence for "atheism" or "lack" of belief because there isn't any.

2, I want "atheist" on this site to answer this question, do you agree that God is possible? simple yes or no.

3, I invite any "atheist" or non-believers to ShockAweNow.net to debate Rich, the owner of the site. you will not win.

God Bless.

 

[NGC 6712]

The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out.

Except that isn't what is usually pointed out though, is it?

 

[NGC 6712]

just because the judge committed judicial activism,

The old "if a judge makes a decision I disagree with then he's an activist judge" card. LOL

 

[NGC 6712]

A. If sex wasn't sacred, it would be a jungle, in public, no dignity, no love to it. we keep it private, and it has importance. it is to express love pleasurably to your spouse and to procreate, something in God's image. to give, love, and create, with pleasure. that is why sex is sacred, and sex like anything else can be corrupted and not sacred when not done in God's image.

B.Prove how it came from culture. doesn't explain why it is morally wrong to go naked in the streets.

c)"evolution" doesn't explain why everything fits, why is there only male and female, why not any other "species", why does man need woman and woman need man to procreate? this coincidence stuff doesn't add up. why would sex have to be bond forming, pleasurable, beautiful? this is too intelligent to be coincidence or "evolution", "evolution" cannot explain this intelligent irreducible complexity, only God can.

And yet it is still, humorous, why?, why does nudity have such shame? why do we wear clothes to cover our bodies from others?

"evolution" can't explain why public nudity is morally wrong. if "evolution" happened, there would be no such thing as privacy or shame, sex wouldn't be private and there would be no shame in public nudity.

I have seen some claptrap on this site but the above quotes are right up there in a claptrap Hall of Fame.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

-Saying altruism is a "survival and gene passing" technique and offering no logical evidence to it except for word of mouth.

You said it's impossible. I gave an exhaustive mechanical explanation as to how, in fact, it's possible.

-assuming "evolution" is true when I showed it is an impossibility and couldn't have happened, you have yet to refute that.

You've done nothing of the sort. Your only attempts at science have been to parrot Creationist websites on cosmogony - you haven't even tried to refute evolution. Keep up.

1, So you admit that genes are intelligent.

Since I never used that phrase, no.

and 2, you didn't prove how genes could dictate my conscious and tell me what I ought and ought not to do. altruism, morality, and love aren't affected by chemicals, but a knowing, they are a conscious thing.

You accuse me of not proving such and such - and then turn around and utter something without proof yourself. That is called hypocrisy.

Proof?

That 'survival of the fittest' is inaccurate? Take an elementary course in evolution, you'll see for yourself. If you want to claim that SofF is somehow integral to, or an accurate portrayal of, evolution, then you have to prove it.

And why is it cultural?

Ankles used to be sexual in the 1700s. Heaven only knows why. Like I said, people are idiots.

Doesn't prove anything, doesn't make public nudity morally right or explain why public nudity is morally wrong, indecent. most of the world wears clothes and don't go out in public nude. that is a small part of the world. culture can't explain at all why we feel ashamed if we are nude in public.

On the contrary, it does exactly that: we only feel ashamed to be nude because that's what we've always been taught. This is proven positive by the existence of cultures where, without that cultural education, no such shame exists.

Nope that doesn't explain why the actual sex is intimate. what purpose would "evolution" give for sex being pleasurable and bond forming, it doesn't need to be, but it is. when people have sex, they do not always procreate. so "evolution" doesn't explain that.

If you're not going to bother reading my posts, I'm not going to bother writing them. I just explained how the nature of human gestation explains why we have intimate, pair-bonding sexuality.

"Why does sex involve intimacy and pair-bonding? Because humans have a long gestational period, as well as a long child-rearing period. This makes having children resource-intensive - unlike some species, we can't mate, give birth, and leave them to it. We need to care for our young for a long time in order to properly procreate - and this requires the formation of bonds between the parents (as both have a genetic stake in the child), etc."

Sex is intimate because it cements bonds between two prospective parents, helping ensuring their mutual cooperation when procreation does occur. There are hard, mechanical benefits to having intimate, pair-bonding sex in a species which has such resource-intensive childrearing.

2. Nope still won't get me to the here and now. lets use the store example. the store is infinitely away, whether it has finite or infinite steps doesn't matter, the store is still infinitely away. no matter what I do I'll never get to that store.

On the contrary, if you have infinite steps, you can get there. In an eternal universe, we already have an infinity of finite steps to get to the present - remember, in an eternal universe, we haven't walked 'from infinity ago' to the present. That's not how an eternal universe works - but by assuming it anyway, you run into all sorts of mathematical paradoxes. Not because the eternal universe is illogical, but because of your naive understanding of infinity. Go read the Wikipedia article on it.

3. See what you just admitted, you can't count down from infinity, your right, it doesn't make any sense because it is impossible. and since you can't count down from infinity to 1 because it would be impossible. you can't have an infinite past because it would be impossible to get to the present.

No, it's impossible to count. That doesn't make it impossible. Infinity is a lot more complicated than you realise. Set theory differentiates between countable and uncountable sets, but both are perfectly valid concepts - that one is uncountable doesn't make it impossible.

Your Proof?, there is a beginning, thus time is linear.

"There is a beginning, thus time is linear". Err, OK, where's your proof?

Nope uncaused means won't ever cease to exist, because if the uncaused cause ceased to exist, then nothing would exist. everything was created by the uncaused cause. and since the uncause cause, God is uncaused He has and always will exist, the universe has no effect on God.

If the universe was created by the uncaused cause, it could thereafter cease to exist. Once the universe exists, whether or not the uncaused cause continues to exists is irrelevant. Thus, it is illogical to assume that the uncaused cause does, indeed, continue to exist - if there is such a cause, and it does cease to exist (perhaps as a function of creating the universe in the first place), that also fits the criteria of an uncaused cause.

Because that's the answer.

Once again, where's your logic? You say that the universe had to be caused by the greatest thing ever, the thing from which no greater thing can be imagined. Prove it.

Doesn't matter who the work is from, if you don't want to go to the website, I'll just post it here.

And I'll ignore it.

I did, and I used darwinismrefuted.com, you have yet to reply to that. post #537

Use your own words, SBC. Pick an example, and let's discuss it.

Oh please, it doesn't matter how long it is or where I get the information from, as long as I'm refuting your argument. it doesn't matter who's work it is. that is just excuses.

Err, no. You're posting massive walls of text, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through someone else's work. I'm happy to talk to you, but not via proxy. It's not that copy-and-paste automatically invalidates the words, but that I have no interest in debating by proxy against entire essays at a time.

Just can't be a coincidence. and no I don't have to use my own words,

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

Ah, you're referring to the so-called 'Bible code'. You realise, don't you, that the same techniques to extract 'predictions' from the Bible also yielded historical data from Moby Dick and the like? That professional mathematicians have calculated a 1 in 2 chance that any given algorithm will yield meaningful (but random) data? The Bible code is a mathematical joke, an inevitability when you take a basically random assortment of characters, pull an enourmous number of strings out, and then literally tune it match words and phrases.

Long story short, the fallacy of the Bible code is to find patterns in random noise and equate it with something meaningful. Even shorter, it's a fantastic example of confirmation bias.

Lots of people die for their beliefs, but only the first century Christian martyrs were in a position to know whether they saw Jesus after his death or not.

Allegedly. The assumption of the counter-argument is that, if Jesus' resurrection were false, the disciples would know it and would have knowingly died for a lie. This assumption is unwarranted.

Show evidence.

For what? You need evidence that someone can be right about some things and wrong about others? OK:

1. I, Wiccan_Child, assert that it never rains, anywhere, ever.
2. I, Wiccan_Child, assert that 1 + 1 = 2

Right there, I'm right about some things, wrong about others. Did you really need evidence for that most trivial of facts?


Remember, the point is that Lewis' dichotomy excludes valid alternatives (such as, "Jesus lied about some stuff, was a lunatic about others, etc"), simply to make the logic work. That's fallacious. Whether or not you think Jesus lied or was mistaken about some things is irrelevant: Lewis' dichotomy simply doesn't work.

1, If they didn't write anything, doesn't change the fact that it happened,

Indeed, but it does mean you can't talk about having lots of eye-witnesses when, in fact, you don't.

2, How do you know that they didn't write anything down? this happened about 2,000 years ago.

Right, which means we don't have the eye-witness accounts - if any such accounts ever existed. You say you have eye-witnesses. Where are they?

Your proof?

there is no evidence of forgery. they document it as "a mystery", you know well and good how the supernatural image got there, only by Jesus Christ, The Son of God. The Shroud of Jesus Christ is your evidence that supernatural exist.

First, don't tell me what I do or do not know. That's a one-way ticket to the ignore list.

Second, you're confusing the 1978 analysis with later, more thorough analyses. The former couldn't find evidence in the manufacture of the cloth, but the latter demonstrated that it dates to the Middle Ages at the earliest, that the 'imprint' is nothing more than a Gothic piece of art (as evidenced by the unnatural proportions of the forehead, arms, legs, etc), etc. The most criticism of these analyses is that the samples taken aren't indicative of the whole - but even when one assumes this to be the case, the margin of error only increases by two centuries - still well after Jesus' alleged death.

And yes W_child did take The Bible out of context and slander. refer back to my post #540

W_child referenced Deuteronomy 22:23-24, took it out of context, threw an accusation and left out the very next verse Deuteronomy 22:25 where rape is condemned. he could've added the very next verse, 25 but didn't. that makes it pretty obvious to me that it was on purpose. it was slanderous.

I addressed that in the next post. Let's review. The Bible mentions rape three times in Deuteronomy: the rape of a betrothed woman in the city (Deut. 22:23-24), the rape of a betrothed woman in the country (Deut. 22:25-27), and the rape of an unbetrothed woman (Deut. 22:28-29). The context of the verses makes it clear: it's outlining what happens when a man rapes a woman in all three possibilities.

You say that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 isn't about rape, because it doesn't mention rape.

"If a man comes upon a virgin in town, a girl who is engaged to another man, and sleeps with her, take both of them to the town gate and stone them until they die—the girl because she didn't yell out for help in the town and the man because he raped her, violating the fiancée of his neighbor. You must purge the evil from among you."

As for punishments, in the first two instances, the man is killed, but not for the savagery of the act, but because he violated another man's property ("because he violated another man’s wife"). And in the event she isn't married, well, the law simply forces her to marry her rapist. Think about that. She is forced to marry her rapist.

Do you think that's right? Do you think it's good and moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist? Do you think it's good and moral for a rape victim to be executed, simply because she didn't scream loudly enough?

Your only retort seems to be, "Oh, but that was just the culture of the time", and this excuse is hammers home in the exert you cited in post #540. Not only is that a sickeningly wicked response to such a vile law, it completely undermines your other point about morals being objective and not cultural - either they're objective, and single rape victims should always marry their rapists, or they're cultural, in which case they don't. It doesn't excuse the barbarism of the law in the first place, of course.

So not only does God order rape elsewhere in the Bible (Deut. 20, etc), the only time it's condemned is when the woman is engaged to another man - the crime is explicitly given as one of property damage.

1, Still haven't gotten any evidence for "atheism" or "lack" of belief because there isn't any.

Well, yea. Do you understand what 'lack of belief' means? It's something you don't have. It's as nonsensical as asking for evidence for a lack of belief in fairies.

2, I want "atheist" on this site to answer this question, do you agree that God is possible? simple yes or no.

Yes.

3, I invite any "atheist" or non-believers to ShockAweNow.net to debate Rich, the owner of the site.

Why would we bother? The Atheist Experience already does a stand-up job debunking shockofgod and his babbling brook of nonsense.

 

[Davian]

So let me get this straight, you want scientific evidence on a past event? you want scientific evidence that is observable on a well documented Historical event?

As the bible does not count, it is not well documented, is it?

I can't provide observable evidence that I just had a conversation with a friend, but I can provide witnesses.

We are not talking about a casual conversation. We are talking about a key component of your religion.

I can't provide physical evidence that any historical event happened, I can't go back in time and show it to you, but I can provide Historical evidence for a Historical event and scientific evidence from the event.

since you want scientific evidence from the Historical event, it is The Shroud of Jesus Christ.

The shroud of Turin? That was exposed as a fraud. Was that the best you had for the resurrection?

yep, the dover trial, Judicial activism.

So ID is dismissed.

from unmaskingevolution.com:

The Anthropic Principle
<snip>Conclusion

(1) The Anthropic Principle is a contrived definition which evolutionists use to interpret the physical data, while avoiding the acknowledgement of a creator.

It does not show a requirement for a creator, so there is nothing to avoid. And you again failed to answer my question. Do you even understand what you cut and paste into this thread?

As I am feeling sorry for you, I will give you this: The weak anthopic principle merely states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. (wiki)

(2) The Anthropic Principle is not a scientific principle because a tested for "other universes" cannot be conducted.

And so it does not support your arguments. Dismissed.

Yes I did, read my previous posts.
I did - you did not.
Then please explain who other than God has the authority over all humans?

Your question is nonsensical. Show me that deities are possible first.

Morals are obligated and it is all of humanity's duty to follow those morals, thus they are commanded, thus they they need a commander that overrules all of humanity, that is God.

You have yet to show that this "God" is more than a character in a book. What you are saying is nonsensical until then.

1,2,3,4) post #503

No you did not. To reiterate: Demonstrate to me that 1) the universe had a beginning 2) it required a cause 3) deities are possible, and that cause was by necessity a deity of some sort 4) it was your deity. All you have are assertions.

Whether you define "atheism" as a nonsensical assertion or "lack" of belief, it still doesn't exist, it still has no proof, no evidence. if it does by all means provide it because I know it doesn't.

I take your continuous nonsensical demands for evidence for atheism as an indication of how weak you feel your other arguments are. If you had strong arguments, and convincing evidence, you would not keep repeating this nonsense.

Wait a minute, you ask me to provide evidence to prove that Christianity is the truth, and I do it. I use evidence that proves, God exist.

Scientific evidence does not "prove" anything, so you cannot have done so.

Science. You are doing it wrong.

but when I ask you to provide evidence for "atheism" or evidence to justify a "lack" of belief or "disbelief" you won't do it? Again, whether your definition of "atheism" is an nonsensical assertion, "lack" of belief, "disbelief", or whatever, provide proof for it.

I take your continuous nonsensical demands for evidence for atheism as an indication of how weak you feel your other arguments are. If you had strong arguments, and convincing evidence, you would not keep repeating this nonsense.

if you could provide evidence for "atheism", you would have done it already, but since you can't, it doesn't exist.

I take your continuous nonsensical demands for evidence for atheism as an indication of how weak you feel your other arguments are. If you had strong arguments, and convincing evidence, you would not keep repeating this nonsense.

Of what? there is substantial evidence for God.

Evidence or not, that does not preclude the existence of skeptics or atheists. Are you new here?

I take offense at your accusation. where did I insult you? provide evidence. if anyone is rewording what I wrote it is you, I wrote "atheism", not "atheist".

That is as good as an admission.

And I have, and I have not insulted anyone.

You just wrote that your insult was aimed at atheism - which would be atheists, by my reckoning. Where do you get your morals from?

Who's accusing you? I meant the other guy, W_child who slandered God.

You did, in your reply to me.

Proof?

Each post of yours where you talk of this "God" as if it has already been proven to exist.

Dictate? you don't have to answer the question if you do not want to. but since you refuse to not the answer the question, and you have every right not to. then you show that "lack" of belief doesn't exist. if it did you would easily answer the yes or no question.

Positive or a Negative doesn't matter you have to provide evidence.

Bingo. I am not making a positive or negative claim. I am taking the neutral postion, atheism. More precisely, ignosticism. (not agnosticism)

Example would be, there is evidence that person A is committed a crime, person A's lawyer objects and has to provide evidence that he didn't commit the crime, if the lawyer cannot provide the evidence then it is proven that person A isn't innocent. if he was he would have evidence that justifies his innocence.

I could provide evidence for God, for Christianity. why can't you provide evidence for "atheism"?

I take your continuous nonsensical demands for evidence for atheism as an indication of how weak you feel your other arguments are. If you had strong arguments, and convincing evidence, you would not keep repeating this nonsense.

The universe. His creation. God has given us substantial evidence for his existence. your "lack" of belief is unjustified unless you can provide good evidence for it.

Evasion noted. Try again. Provide a robust, scientifically testable definition for this "God"; we test it, then I will provide an answer.

 

[NailsII]

Intersting converstaion between Wiccan Child & Saved by Christ94, but there are a couple of points I would like SBC94 to clarify if you don't mind.

Firstly, what exactly were you saved from?

1, Still haven't gotten any evidence for "atheism" or "lack" of belief because there isn't any.

I don't collect stamps.
Would you like me to provide evidence for this?

2, I want "atheist" on this site to answer this question, do you agree that God is possible? simple yes or no.

Possible, yes.
Unlikely.
Unnecessary.

3, I invite any "atheist" or non-believers to ShockAweNow.net to debate Rich, the owner of the site. you will not win.

You do fo course realise that winning a debate is not always about evidence, or discussion points, or even what is said.
It is possible to win a debate by being a rather good public speaker.

1, If they didn't write anything, doesn't change the fact that it happened, 2, How do you know that they didn't write anything down? this happened about 2,000 years ago. we are lucky to have the 4 Gospels, extra Biblical sources, Historical Accuracy and Jesus Christ Shroud.

..........​

there is no evidence of forgery. they document it as "a mystery", you know well and good how the supernatural image got there, only by Jesus Christ, The Son of God. The Shroud of Jesus Christ is your evidence that supernatural exist.

1. You only know that it happened because it was written down, not the other way around.
2. The four gospels are of questionable authorship, there is a strong suggestion that three of the four are deviations from a single text, and only John is an original account (but your bible copy is not the same as the oldest manuscripts - it has been altered over time).
What are these extra-biblical sources you speak of?
If you trust the gospels because of their historical accuracy, what do you think of the historical innacuracies?

And finally the really interesting one.

The Turin Shroud.

Without appealing to evidence, read your bible and tell me how many pieces of cloth Jesus was supposedly wrapped in.
Then tell me how many pieces of cloth are deemed holy in the shroud.

One of them is wrong, completely wrong.

Of course, anyone can debunk the shroud - just ask someone to lay down on an old curtain and draw an outline of their head and body; marking carefully their features on the face.
You will see immediatly that the shroud is not someone laying down; the proportions (especially on the face) are all wrong.
It is made to look like someone has layed in it.
It is a work of art.

 

[NailsII]

Example would be, there is evidence that person A is committed a crime, person A's lawyer objects and has to provide evidence that he didn't commit the crime, if the lawyer cannot provide the evidence then it is proven that person A isn't innocent. if he was he would have evidence that justifies his innocence.

I think you will find that the criminal justice system is built upon the foundation of 'innocent until proven guilty'. This means that the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate that someone is guilty, not the other way around. If there is credible evidence that you are guilty, you are given a chance to refute it and present a counter-argument.
If someone is sat at home all night, no witnesses - and an eye-witness puts them at the scene of a murder, then you have no evidence that you are innocent. This does not make you guilty.

In the same way, the onus is on you to demonstrate why god is real.

My atheism is merely a position I have taken because I don't think that any religions have met their burden of proof; and if there is no evidence for a god or gods, why should we even think that any exist.

 

[RickG]

From Creation.com

The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?
by John Woodmorappe

It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept.............[snip]

You did not address a single question I asked. Instead you spam C&P from a non science source with a complete misrepresentation of the geologic column. Providing a link will suffice in the future. However, I expect that link to be from legitimate scientific sources from experts in the field being discussed. Henry Morris was no expert in the field of geology, he was a Civil Engineer.

There is no place on earth where the entire geologic column is in tact. Geology makes no such claims. However, much of the geologic column does exist in its various parts all around the world. The earth is not a static body, it is a dynamic system. The earth's dynamic forces of plate tectonics, orogenic uplift, sedimentary deposition and erosion are always in action.

Again, please answer the question:

Originally posted by RickG: Now look at those layers of strata and notice that the oldest and simplest fossils are in the bottom layers of strata. As one moves up through the geologic column, one begins to see more and more diverse and complex fossils. How do you explain that with out some sort of evolution occurring? If those life forms had not evolved, where did all the new life come from? Why don't we find all of the life forms throughout the geologic column? If life had not evolved, would we not expect to find rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata or human fossils along side dinosaur fossils?

How can you explain the geologic column without evolution? And please understand that I have asked you a scientific question from a scientific perspective, not a biblical one. Thank you.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Due to some recent troll activity, this thread has been cleaned up. Some of your posts had to go. Sorry.



MOD HAT OFF

 

[Inan3]

In the same way, the onus is on you to demonstrate why god is real.

My atheism is merely a position I have taken because I don't think that any religions have met their burden of proof; and if there is no evidence for a god or gods, why should we even think that any exist.

Now Nails it would seem that God is the defendant here and therefore it is on the part of His accusers to prove that He does not exist. I already know that He does because I have a relationship with Him. He is a Spirit and those that worship Him MUST worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. He that comes to God must BELIEVE that He is. No other way to get to Him or know Him.

My Christianity is more than merely a position or a religion. We enter into relationship with God. God met the burden of proof for me when I asked Him to come into my life. The evidence is that my life changed from that day to this and continues to change. This evidence extends to thousands and millions of people all over the world in every walk of life. There is also much evidence all around us. In the earth, in biology, in science, etc. It all screams there MUST be a Creator... a Designer. One only has to open their eyes and not fight against it. It's not that difficult. Seek and you shall find.

BTW it's good to see you on again. When I was on before... you weren't.