What proof would you need? (2)

[CabVet]

They contend that the Truth is that women have the total right to do whatever they want with their bodies, for instance. Vonsequently, society can not impliment rules in the Social Contract that include women physically conforming to such rules.

Oh, here you come again with your sexist remarks full of prejudice. Grow up. I will ask again, what did women in your life do to you for you to hate them so much?

 

[cupid dave]

Like I said - the kind of God atheists complain about is the same kind of God they seem to want:\

I just said that.

They claim thy want the Truth to be known and to reign over all the dumb people.

But this is the god of the New Testament.

"I am the Truth, the way, the life"...


At issue is whether atheists and Christians will acknowledge the Truth when it confronts them.

Remember that Satan believes in the Truth, but avoids acting in regard to it.


When I post that half of all kids are being raised by Single Mothers and those fatherless kids are responsible for 75% of all social problems, Satan is deaf, dumb, and blind.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Click here to see Satan:[/FONT] Revelation 20: Satan's temporary fall

​

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Except that atheists don't "want" a God, they only want you to prove there is one.

The original post which started this discussion was about whether or not God was "fair" - basically yet another the debate about the problem of evil and suffering.

Finding out what kind of God atheists wanted didn't come asking them directly (if I did I would never get a straight answer ) but rather, from seeing how they would like the problem of evil to be solved. What they want apparently is to give up free will altogether and have God take total responsibility for everything - to be infantilized. This coming from a group which encourages people to think for themselves.

Other atheists however, claim they wouldn't believe in God even if He was proved to exist.

 

[Greg1234]

God intervened in the book yes. But not in the actual world- takes more evidence to believe something like that.

I don't think your comparison is good btw. Lieutenant Stauffenberg very nearly killed Hitler, who survived the blast only because of a table made of solid oak (yet all others died that where present in the room). Yet your god thought that was a desirable outcome?

Hitler and Stalin were two deeply evil men, killing them would have done a great service to humanity.

And how does it intervene? The path was been laid out repeatedly.

 

[Greg1234]

If there was a god he would perhaps consider revealing himself on CNN or something.

Hey! No shortcuts. I'm watching you, mister.

 

[CabVet]

The original post which started this discussion was about whether or not God was "fair" - basically yet another the debate about the problem of evil and suffering.

Finding out what kind of God atheists wanted didn't come asking them directly (if I did I would never get a straight answer ) but rather, from seeing how they would like the problem of evil to be solved. What they want apparently is to give up free will altogether and have God take total responsibility for everything - to be infantilized. This coming from a group which encourages people to think for themselves.

Other atheists however, claim they wouldn't believe in God even if He was proved to exist.

No, if you really listened you would notice that what they really want is to be left alone and not have anybody's God pushed down their throats. Criticizing and pointing out inconsistencies in your God does not equal to "wanting" him.

 

[selfinflikted]

And yet you think you can have perfection without free will. Obviously it can't be that valuable if you're willing to give it up.

That is not what I said. Re-read my post. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. What I want now is for you to explain to me how if god had created man perfect that would automatically preclude man having free will. You are the one arguing that perfection and free will can't coexist. I'm simply asking you to explain to me why you think that.

I'll say to you what I said to Begt: trying to discuss God without using the Bible is like trying to discuss evolution without using fossils. <snip>

So, after the writing of the Bible was completed, god just stopped? I asked for examples outside the Bible for a very obvious reason.

Repeating yourself didn't with with Astridhere and it won't work with you.

Darls, all you are doing now is woffling. Anything I say is at least as good as anything you Christians can come up with.

(Good impression, no? Doesn't that "Darls" remark make you severely nauseous? It does me. I can't even read her posts because they simply drip with condescension).

Anyway, you have yet to explain to me why god isn't responsible. Until you can show how he isn't, we are at an impasse. I have already shown quite clearly how god is responsible. That is not to say that we should simply poo poo our own responsibilities as empathetic human beings, however. Because it is quite evident that if we won't do something, no one will. Certainly not your god, who just rests on his laurels while the human suffering trudges on...

Furthermore, question ("Haven't you ever wondered why Christians practically never use this argument?") is not irrelevent at all. We believe in God, yet we don't automatically assume that He is responsible for everything bad in the world. Why not? Wouldn't it be nice to have someone to blame?

No, you can't very well go around accusing and faulting god with anything because that would show him to be all the things you claim he is not. Besides, he might not like that anyway and not let you into heaven. That is, after all, the name of the game. Is it not?

The impression I get with these posts (I've had similar debates with atheists on many other occasions) is that atheists want a God who...

- Doesn't give His subjects minds of their own
- Doesn't allow them to do anything by themselves in case they do something wrong (or if they do something wrong He immediately fixes it)
- Dictates everything to them - including science and morality - instead of letting them figure it out for themselves.

Ironically that's the very kind of God most of them complain about: a kind of celestial dictator.

Hm. That's not what I'm aiming for with this line of debate, and I think you are reading into my posts some things that I most certainly have not said nor insinuated. You have started from a few shaky pretenses, and that has skewed your ability to grasp intent. IOW, you are not picking up what I'm putting down.

 

[Astridhere]

Evolution can survive without fossils as genetics has progressed to the point that common ancestry is evident in DNA! Fossils are valuable but I would say not vital for ToE!

Is that so?

Then you have a problem with DNA contradicting morphology in many speices eg chimp/human/orang and hippo/whale/pig.

Given the 'life' has a mechanism unlike non life and is all part of a food chain and hence life must be based on similarity, there is bound to be one species closer to another than the rest. If chimps went extinct it would be something else. If all great apes went exitnct it would be another etc etc. All this demonstrates, at best, is which species God used similar genetic designs to create. You assume this means ancestry and hand wave away genetic anommolies as genetic homoplasy.

Indeed if evolutionists are going to zero in on some DNA similarity due to the preconcieved assumption of ancestry, and ignore the rest, they will find what they are wanting to find. However, this is biased science, not really looking for the truth.

Another example would be whale bones found in an area dated to 290 million years. Could whales be that old? Of course not, say evolutionists. So off they go and date the whale bones. What did they find? Inconsistent carbon dates from 190 to 900mya. Why was this? Of course it was contamination. What happened to all the dating that dated the land to 290myo? Hand waved away in one motion.

Michigan's Fossil Whales
Fossils That Are Found in Michigan | eHow.com

Evolutionists have plenty of evidence for creation sitting right underneath their noses but they will never admit it and will always find some convolution to realign evidence for creation with evolution. The truth does not matter to evolutionists. They only want to keep their jobs and find a way to bias evidence, fossil or genomic, to align with evolution, no matter what it takes.

 

[CabVet]

Is that so?

Then you have a problem with DNA contradicting morphology in many speices eg chimp/human/orang and hippo/whale/pig.

Given the 'life' has a mechanism unlike non life and is all part of a food chain and hence life must be based on similarity, there is bound to be one species closer to another than the rest. If chimps went extinct it would be something else. If all great apes went exitnct it would be another etc etc. All this demonstrates, at best, is which species God used similar genetic designs to create. You assume this means ancestry and hand wave away genetic anommolies as genetic homoplasy.

Indeed if evolutionists are going to zero in on some DNA similarity due to the preconcieved assumption of ancestry, and ignore the rest, they will find what they are wanting to find. However, this is biased science, not really looking for the truth.

Another example would be whale bones found in an area dated to 290 million years. Could whales be that old? Of course not, say evolutionists. So off they go and date the whale bones. What did they find? Inconsistent carbon dates from 190 to 900mya. Why was this? Of course it was contamination. What happened to all the dating that dated the land to 290myo? Hand waved away in one motion.

Michigan's Fossil Whales
Fossils That Are Found in Michigan | eHow.com

Evolutionists have plenty of evidence for creation sitting right underneath their noses but they will never admit it and will always find some convolution to realign evidence for creation with evolution. The truth does not matter to evolutionists. They only want to keep their jobs and find a way to bias evidence, fossil or genomic, to align with evolution, no matter what it takes.

And to this post, I respond with this quote:

[FONT=&quot]

Denial is not evidence.

[/FONT]

 

[cupid dave]

Oh, here you come again with your sexist remarks full of prejudice. Grow up. I will ask again, what did women in your life do to you for you to hate them so much?

?

How can a chart which merely states the facts graphically be "full of prejudice?"
I would counter by saying YOU are bias and refuse to entertain the TRrut when it goes against your own beliefs and prejudices.

 

[CabVet]

How can a chart which merely states the facts graphically be "full of prejudice?"

And what in the world has this chart have to do with this statement:

They contend that the Truth is that women have the total right to do whatever they want with their bodies, for instance.

 

[Astridhere]

Cabvet says

And to this post, I respond with this quote:


[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by Astridhere

Denial is not evidence.
​

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Cabvet. If this is the best reply you can offer, Creationists may as well not bother. Your mates here leave you for dead in better challenges and at least are not totally ignorant.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]As I said you can do no more than offer denial which is no challenge, let alone a refute, as demonstrated by your every post. Simplistic and inadequate replies are a reflection of the simplistic inadequate mind.[/FONT]​

 

[Astridhere]

Is that so?

Then you have a problem with DNA contradicting morphology in many speices eg chimp/human/orang and hippo/whale/pig.

Given the 'life' has a mechanism unlike non life and is all part of a food chain and hence life must be based on similarity, there is bound to be one species closer to another than the rest. If chimps went extinct it would be something else. If all great apes went exitnct it would be another etc etc. All this demonstrates, at best, is which species God used similar genetic designs to create. You assume this means ancestry and hand wave away genetic anommolies as genetic homoplasy.

Indeed if evolutionists are going to zero in on some DNA similarity due to the preconcieved assumption of ancestry, and ignore the rest, they will find what they are wanting to find. However, this is biased science, not really looking for the truth.

Another example would be whale bones found in an area dated to 290 million years. Could whales be that old? Of course not, say evolutionists. So off they go and date the whale bones. What did they find? Inconsistent carbon dates from 190 to 900mya. Why was this? Of course it was contamination. What happened to all the dating that dated the land to 290myo? Hand waved away in one motion.

Michigan's Fossil Whales
Fossils That Are Found in Michigan | eHow.com

Evolutionists have plenty of evidence for creation sitting right underneath their noses but they will never admit it and will always find some convolution to realign evidence for creation with evolution. The truth does not matter to evolutionists. They only want to keep their jobs and find a way to bias evidence, fossil or genomic, to align with evolution, no matter what it takes.

Most of you evos know what support for creation should look like and that's why you so vehemently try to defend your fossil and genomic evidence, unsuccessfully, I may add.eg Gona female erectus pelvis, whales, erectus etc.... So I won't keep replying to Cabvet unless he decides to actually reply with some substance. He has many words with nothing to say!

ERECTUS.. if you can only talk about philosophy and pose silly questions you ain't going to win any points against me. I am here to talk about science. Science supports creation and a book with scientific knowledge in it that predates modern discovery of same. If you can't defend your science against the case I have established over many weeks, please don't bother replying to me.



Does anybody have anything intelligent (not simplistic denial) to add to the hand wave away of evidence of whales being around at least 290 million years ago?

 

[Huram Abi]

I wasn't aware that you could prove that erectus was or wasn't a human based on the origin of whales.

 

[AV1611VET]

... you must have at least a Doctorate in Biology.
Either that or you are a complete and utter fool, I favour the latter.

Can't tell the difference, huh?

 

[Astridhere]

Huram Abi, the case for erectus and Turkana Boy has past. I have won that already.

Some goose asiding and requesting proof of God as a reply is hardly any refute. Neither is denial, and not being able nail down the ever changing and shrinking erectus, that is no athlete anymore. None of you have gone near explaining the ridiculous scenarios around the Gona female erectus pelvis and the inconsistency that I have sproken to. Homo erectus is no more human than a modern gorilla. Lucy & Ardi the chimp or Gorilla ancestors as supported by Dawkins and other evolutionary researchers. You do not have human transistionals that demonstrate common ancestor to mankind. You do have some evidence of transition from one variety of ape to another and adaptation and that is all.

Hence creation is supported. Evolution predicts intermediates will be found between kinds. Creation predicts there will be no intermediates between kinds.

Creation predicts that if God simply used similar genomic designs in various kinds morphology would not always agree with DNA. We do. That is exactly what we find.

If evolution is true we should expect to see DNA and morphology align. We do not. eg chimp/human/orang, pig/hippo/whale. Instead to realign data away from supporting creation, even data that is biased, you still have to invent terms like genetic and morphological homoplasy, convergent evolution, huge chunks genomic deletions, many changing flavours of the month etc to support your view.

I am satisfied that there is no credible evidence that you can possibly supply that would move my view on erectus being no more human than a modern gorilla on this...and I am not here trying to convert evos with evogoggles on to see truth.

So now, that I am satisfied that my interpretations and supports for my view could not possibly we worse than what you offer, I am moving on. There is no point flogging a dead horse.

I have posted, what I feel, may be good evidence for the biased interpretations of evolutionists, that have simply redated land and geologic processes to align with the evolutionary paradigm, instead of seeking the 'truth'. Carbon dating has many flaws. Is there any evidence, other than the assumption of TOE that this land was undersea so recently given the fauna and flora it was found with? Indeed I see no reason to not take the whale fossils for what simply is apparent, evidence that whales were alive and thriving close to the time of the creation of all life in the sea, as stated in the bible. This evidence more aligns with creation, than evolution.

My theory cannot possibly be worse than yours. I believe my interpretation of the 290myo whale evidence is more in line with the data than yours and does not need a plethora of non plausible and highly unlikely scenarios to support it.

Thanks AV1611VET, we can both see who the fool is with big attitude, over developed sense of self importance and nothing more to offer,.... and not worth a reply.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just wanted a big build up to telling her she is a fool, but you already knew that, that she's a fool I mean.

Her icon and her beliefs say otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

See what I mean AV? she's completely off the chart.

What's wrong with that?

 

[selfinflikted]

[FONT=&quot]Simplistic and inadequate replies are a reflection of the simplistic inadequate mind.[/FONT]

And what then, Darls, can be said about the mind of an individual who believes in an "invisible best friend", global floods, zombies, talking animals, demons, fairies, etc etc?

*wofflewofflewoffle*

 

[AV1611VET]

And what then, Darls, can be said about the mind of an individual who, believes in an "invisible best friend", global floods, zombies, talking animals, demons, fairies, etc etc?

Sounds to me like you're all for getting psychological help for us, eh?

Have you ever wondered how we used to be scored if we saw Christian symbols on the Rorschach test?