What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Colter]

Simply evil? Wow. Earlier in our conversation you noted that it's not unreasonable to question whether a religious person's experiences reflect something genuinely divine (1, 2), especially when those experiences are used to assert authority over others. Yet when such questions are posed you say that those pursuing the line of inquiry are "simply evil." It is extraordinarily disingenuous of you to, on the one hand, pretend that inquiry is not unreasonable and even welcome, but then to shut down those who inquire by casting aspersions on their character - calling them insincere, stubborn, subversive, rebellious and proud, among other things.

No, I just think you are desperate to find anything wrong with what I and others say, any possible inconsistency, tiny crack etc. having left God. I think at times you aren't honest with your own motives, so spare me the faned outrage. Underneath it all you are casting aspersions on me and others doc and then pretending to be oh so above it all! So cut the nonsense really, I've been around the block a few times!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I just think you are desperate to find anything wrong with what I and others say, any possible inconsistency, tiny crack etc. having left God. I think at times you aren't honest with your own motives, so spare me the faned outrage.

You think you know my motives better than I do? From where did you obtain such amazing mind-reading skills? Why are you even here then? You should be on television!

Underneath it all you are casting aspersions on me and others doc and then pretending to be oh so above it all! So cut the nonsense really, I've been around the block a few times!

Here's the thing Colter... I don't need to cast aspersions on your character. I simply need to gesture toward your posting history and discerning readers can reach their own conclusions about your character. I don't need to feign outrage to point to examples of disingenuousness.

 

[Colter]

You think you know my motives better than I do? From where did you obtain such amazing mind-reading skills? Why are you even here then? You should be on television!



Here's the thing Colter... I don't need to cast aspersions on your character. I simply need to gesture toward your posting history and discerning readers can reach their own conclusions about your character. I don't need to feign outrage to point to disingenuousness.

As it turns out, people really aren't that complicated. Discerning readers can read your post and draw their own conclusions as well. You lost faith but stick around to drag others down with you, in a professional way of coarse. It just doesn't get much worse than that!

 

[stevevw]

Apparently we've all missed some profound insight that dispels evolution utterly. In fact, we're not the only ones to have missed it; it appears that the authors of these papers have themselves missed it also.

The problem is as I have been trying to show you is that this example of the incongruence in the tree of life that Darwinian evolution has built is happening more and more as scientists now look into the genetic connections of animals. Its not just a case of some branches having animals swapped in their positions and everything is rosy. As seen in this one example humans are linked close to elephants than mice. That means that it now contradicts the Darwinian model of humans being close to mice which then is linked back to mammals and then apes. Connecting us close to the elephant is a completely different story. For one the anatomical similarities are vastly different from the mice and elephant and that is what the Darwinian model depends on so much in showing the transitions and similar features.

The tree of life was built by evolutionists to show the anatomical similarities between animals. Thats why they are always citing how this feature is found in the two different animals to show a transition between them. The similar looking creatures are linked and the tree is built. All animals are then linked back to a common ancestor. Well now with these new discoveries coming out with the molecular data and the link here is just one of many it is dismantling that tree and throwing in contradictory connections. Its linking different looking creatures with each other, its linking distant and unrelated creatures with each other. Some have similar large chunks of DNA. Supposed closely related animals are now being contradicted and linked with unrelated distant animals.

There is way more convergent evolution than can be accounted for with coincidence between even unrelated distant animals. This also suggest that these animals either have a set blue print for features needed which is common to all and not gained by a random chance process of mutations. Or they have swapped their genetic material through HGT. But it is taking things away from tradition concept of evolution with natural selection. Its all different and the genetic data is not matching what Darwinian evolution predicted.

This means the links for transitions are under questions, the links for common ancestor are under question. The picture evolution painted of one creature slowly morphing into another by small gradual steps of mutations and natural selection showing those steps via the similar morphing features is under question. There are other ways for creatures to morph and change besides natural selection and mutations. As what has been stated by many that mutations are deleterious and dont produce beneficial changes. Certainly no where near enough to account for the millions of complex changes in the Genomes of animals.

The genome is far more complex and shows vast amounts of functions. This complexity and function will continue to be shown as they complete the mapping of genomes. Creatures either had much of their Genetic ability to draw upon for change all along or they also got it from HGT by swapping genetic material across ways from creature to creature. This lines up with the evidence much better and accounts for all the incongruence that is being found in the relationships of all the animals.

 

[bhsmte]

You think you know my motives better than I do? From where did you obtain such amazing mind-reading skills? Why are you even here then? You should be on television!



Here's the thing Colter... I don't need to cast aspersions on your character. I simply need to gesture toward your posting history and discerning readers can reach their own conclusions about your character. I don't need to feign outrage to point to examples of disingenuousness.

I couldn't have said it better if I wanted to. Bravo!

 

[bhsmte]

As it turns out, people really aren't that complicated. Discerning readers can read your post and draw their own conclusions as well. You lost faith but stick around to drag others down with you, in a professional way of coarse. It just doesn't get much worse than that!

Indeed. Judging by your posts, you are not complicated at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The problem is as I have been trying to show you is that this example of the incongruence in the tree of life that Darwinian evolution has built is happening more and more as scientists now look into the genetic connections of animals. Its not just a case of some branches having animals swapped in their positions and everything is rosy. As seen in this one example humans are linked close to elephants than mice. That means that it now contradicts the Darwinian model of humans being close to mice which then is linked back to mammals and then apes. Connecting us close to the elephant is a completely different story. For one the anatomical similarities are vastly different from the mice and elephant and that is what the Darwinian model depends on so much in showing the transitions and similar features.

The tree of life was built by evolutionists to show the anatomical similarities between animals. Thats why they are always citing how this feature is found in the two different animals to show a transition between them. The similar looking creatures are linked and the tree is built. All animals are then linked back to a common ancestor. Well now with these new discoveries coming out with the molecular data and the link here is just one of many it is dismantling that tree and throwing in contradictory connections. Its linking different looking creatures with each other, its linking distant and unrelated creatures with each other. Some have similar large chunks of DNA. Supposed closely related animals are now being contradicted and linked with unrelated distant animals. Its all different and the genetic data is not matching what Darwinian evolution predicted.

This means the links for transitions are under questions, the links for common ancestor are under question. The picture evolution painted of one c5reature slowly morphing into another by small gradual steps of mutations and natural selection showing those steps via the similar morphing features is under question. There are other ways for creatures to morph and change besides natural selection and mutations. As was stated by many mutations are deleterious and dont produce beneficial changes. Certainly no where near enough to account for the millions of complex changes in the Genomes of animals.

The genome is far more complex and shows vast amounts of functions. Creatures either had much of their Genetic ability to draw upon for change all along or they also got it from HGT by swapping genetic material across ways from creature to creature. This lines up with the evidence much better and accounts for all the incongruence that is being found in the relationships of all the animals.

Are you going to email them or not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As it turns out, people really aren't that complicated. Discerning readers can read your post and draw their own conclusions as well. You lost faith but stick around to drag others down with you, in a professional way of coarse. It just doesn't get much worse than that!

I've already made explicit why I "stick around." I enjoy the conversation, particularly on this subforum. I enjoy the company of most other members. It's sometimes frustrating, sometimes edifying, and never dull. I also think it's a worthy goal to dispel many of the pernicious misconceptions religious people have regarding atheists. Those are the reasons why I'm here. You flatter yourself by thinking that I'm here for you, that I linger on this site solely to converse with people like yourself. The truth is that there are very few people like you here, and that's not a compliment.

 

[stevevw]

Are you going to email them or not?

I dont need to. It's the them who have already stated this so I would be only telling them what they have told me. Not that I'm in a position to tell them. I am only the messager. Its them that are saying this not me. I only read and research what they have discovered and try to understand it best I can. I maybe wrong or should I say they maybe wrong. We will just have to wait and see.

But I can predict one thing. That they will find that the so called junk DNA will be much more complex and have much more function. It will begin to show great complexity in each creatures genome and a divide between creatures more and more of their individual genetic makeups. So much so that it will be hard link them in the way Darwinian evolution says. It will be hard to reconcile that all creatures came from a common ancestor and mutated themselves into existence.

In fact I think they will find from what I have been reading that its the mutations that are causing the damage more than anything else. We are slowly deteriorating and as time goes by we are collecting more and more errors in our genomes.

 

[Colter]

I've already made explicit why I "stick around." I enjoy the conversation, particularly on this subforum. I enjoy the company of most other members. It's sometimes frustrating, sometimes edifying, and never dull. I also think it's a worthy goal to dispel many of the pernicious misconceptions religious people have regarding atheists. Those are the reasons why I'm here. You flatter yourself by thinking that I'm here for you, that I linger on this site solely to converse with people like yourself. The truth is that there are very few people like you here, and that's not a compliment.

I realize that you have an easier time undermining some of the unprepared Christians who happen along down this trail lined by an atheist brotherhood, on a Christian forum, people that are not altogether prepared for your craftiness, but your lifeless arguments just doesn't work with everyone Archaeopteryx. And it's not you personally, or Mark or the others, it's your ideology that is pernicious. On a fallen world of confusion and fragile faith, you guys are fostering and spreading evil, you just may not fully realize the allure of the false liberty of the sinful adventure that you have embarked upon.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I dont need to. It's the them who have already stated this so I would be only telling them what they have told me.

But they haven't told you what you think they have. As I already showed you by quoting from the same sources, they don't share your view. You can prove me wrong by emailing them and asking them whether, in their view, your conclusions are supported by their findings.

Not that I'm in a position to tell them. I am only the messager.

What good is a messenger who corrupts the message?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I realize that you have an easier time undermining some of the unprepared Christians who happen along down this trail lined by an atheist brotherhood, on a Christian forum, people that are not altogether prepared for your craftiness, but your lifeless arguments just doesn't work with everyone Archaeopteryx.

You consider this - attempting a character assassination of anyone who disagrees with you - the hallmark of someone who is prepared? Prepared for what? For behaving appallingly? For putting people offside with you? At least the so-called "unprepared" Christians are not being disingenuous.

And it's not you personally, or Mark or the others, it's your ideology that is pernicious. On a fallen world of confusion and fragile faith, you guys are fostering and spreading evil, you just may not fully realize the allure of the false liberty of the sinful adventure that you have embarked upon.

What ideology? You yourself admitted that what we are doing is not unreasonable.

 

[Colter]

You consider this - attempting a character assassination of anyone who disagrees with you - the hallmark of someone who is prepared? Prepared for what? For behaving appallingly? For putting people offside with you? At least the so-called "unprepared" Christians are not being disingenuous.



What ideology? You yourself admitted that what we are doing is not unreasonable.

Prepared for your attempts to confuse and lead some of these people to think their way out of faith by the craftiness of your sophistries. That is appalling to me!!!!

Character flaws are the norm for us all, pointing out intellectual dishonesty in a debate is not an assassination or appalling, it just tweaks your ego up their on your pedestal. Grow some thicker skin!

I admitted? Again, as if this were an inquisition and you extracted a confusion to be used in later questioning. Its just common sense, asking sincere questions when they are sincere, but I often doubt your sincerity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Prepared for your attempts to confuse and lead some of these people to think their way out of faith by the craftiness of your sophistries. That is appalling to me!!!!

Character flaws are the norm for us all, pointing out intellectual dishonesty in a debate is not an assassination or appalling, it just tweaks your ego up their on your pedestal. Grow some thicker skin!

You seem to be labouring under the impression that your thinly veiled insults somehow faze me. Let me dispel that notion for you now. I am no more affected by your insults than I am by the comments of YouTube trolls. If anything, I am amused by how you seem to think that myself and all the other atheists here are here for you.

I admitted? Again, as if this were an inquisition and you extracted a confusion to be used in later questioning. Its just common sense, asking sincere questions when they are sincere, but I often doubt your sincerity.

I have reason to doubt your sincerity when, on the one hand, you claim that questioning is not unreasonable, but on the other, you are shocked and appalled when questioned.

 

[Colter]

You seem to be labouring under the impression that your thinly veiled insults somehow faze me. Let me dispel that notion for you now. I am no more affected by your insults than I am by the comments of YouTube trolls. If anything, I am amused by how you seem to think that myself and all the other atheists here are here for you.



I have reason to doubt your sincerity when, on the one hand, you claim that questioning is not unreasonable, but on the other, you are shocked and appalled when questioned.

You were here before I came down 6 months or so ago, I don't think you are here for me, I think you are here to promote the atheist way of life and undermine people of faith.

You are free to doubt me, but questions like the crafty beast conversing with Eve is more than innocent, unbiased inquiry.

 

[AlephBet]

Back on Page 21, I gave you the best evidence you could have. No one answered me.

I would be interested to debate this. This is not simple proof, but exceedingly simple. It cannot be denied.

#2 and #6 in my signature.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I realize that you have an easier time undermining some of the unprepared Christians who happen along down this trail lined by an atheist brotherhood, on a Christian forum, people that are not altogether prepared for your craftiness, but your lifeless arguments just doesn't work with everyone Archaeopteryx. And it's not you personally, or Mark or the others, it's your ideology that is pernicious. On a fallen world of confusion and fragile faith, you guys are fostering and spreading evil, you just may not fully realize the allure of the false liberty of the sinful adventure that you have embarked upon.

Assuming that you aren't simply indulging in your usual paranoid fantasies about atheists, what exactly is the evil you are talking about? Please be specific.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

To me the training wheels represent the overdeveloped, worldly human ego, (Easing God Out) an inheritance from our evolutionary animal past. It served to protect us from the pack, a time when man was dominated by his instincts.

On subject of ego - not your redefining of the word - you are asking me to let go of the view that I have only a brief biological stint here on this planet as animated meat with the illusion of self awareness, and embrace the idea that the entire universe was magically created for solely for people like me, and I get to live forever?

This leads us back to, how does one determine that your claims are not simply religious mumbo-jumbo?

 

[OceansDeep]

The only evidence I need is the Bible. Jesus makes it clear: John 20:29New King James Version (NKJV)

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
.”

It wouldn't be faith if he appeared to everyone.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only evidence I need is the Bible. Jesus makes it clear: John 20:29New King James Version (NKJV)

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
.”

It wouldn't be faith if he appeared to everyone.

What would you expect from a religion based on a deity that didn't exist? Wouldn't you expect the religious text of that religion to talk about the need for faith in absence of evidence? Would the evidence only exist in stories in books, and somehow fail to appear once people are actually looking?