There Is Evidence For God

[alang1216]

The founding saint of the Democrat Party did....

Again, your history is questionable. Marx would have hated the Dems of the last century but he must have been quite god-like to be a founding saint at the age of 10.

 

[Hollie]

So it's "extreme" to believe that there is a higher power that created the universe and everything in it?

What is the "reasonable" view?

It's extreme to insist that the literal rendering of bibles, korans and other ''holy texts'' are true and inerrant. There are identifiable posters, however, who believe them to be true.

That matters because the primary reason supernatural creation vs. biological evolution is debated is because fundamentalist Christians will not cease attempting to either remove science from its proper place in public schools and / or they attempt to insert their own particular creation mythology to eliminate public school exploration of science.

These silly ''pwoof of the gods'' threads come along regularly. They're usually opened by the same, predictable (im)posters who predictably drench the threads with the same edited, altered and parsed ''quotes'' from Harun Yahya, and extremist christian ministries.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism comes from Satan. 2 Corinthians 4:4

Satan comes from ancient fears and superstitions derived from tales and fables written by Men.

2. Egyptian Book of the Dead 4:4a.

 

[otto105]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

Darwinism has a fossil record.

god has blind childlike faith without any record.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinism has a fossil record.

god has blind childlike faith without any record.

Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

11. We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.

a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)






“Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.”
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion - PubMed

“One of the most interesting challenges facing paleobiologists is explaining the Cambrian explosion, the dramatic appearance of most metazoan animal phyla in the Early Cambrian, and the subsequent stability of these body plans over the ensuing 530 million years.”
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” (Hypothesis) Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~peterson/46-Bioessays.pdf

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.

Hahahah...oh man. So embarrassing to read. You know less than nothing about this topic. I mean that literally. You know nothing about it, and everything you think you know is wrong. You have net negative knowledge. A used condom has more net knowledge on evolution than you do.

 

[Hollie]

Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

11. We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.

a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)






“Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.”
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion - PubMed

“One of the most interesting challenges facing paleobiologists is explaining the Cambrian explosion, the dramatic appearance of most metazoan animal phyla in the Early Cambrian, and the subsequent stability of these body plans over the ensuing 530 million years.”
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” (Hypothesis) Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~peterson/46-Bioessays.pdf

The above are a lot of the phony ''quotes'' you have used multiple times across multiple threads. It's a malady shared by hyper-religious loons. They tend to troll Harun Yahya as a source for their ''quotes''.


let’s look at your Francis Hitching “quote”


Francis Hitching is one, world class whack job.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

www.talkorigins.org

Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism.


Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.


It appears the hyper-religious loons spends an inordinate amount of time trolling some very, very odd people with very, very odd notion

 

[Hollie]

Actually....no, there is no such record.
Organisms simply appear, fully formed, with no such transition fossils.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

11. We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.

a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)






“Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.”
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion - PubMed

“One of the most interesting challenges facing paleobiologists is explaining the Cambrian explosion, the dramatic appearance of most metazoan animal phyla in the Early Cambrian, and the subsequent stability of these body plans over the ensuing 530 million years.”
Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” (Hypothesis) Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~peterson/46-Bioessays.pdf

The edited and parsed ''quote'' from Gould is another staple of the dishonest, hyper-religious hacks. They stole this one from Harun Yahya's site and liberally cut and paste this fraud relentlessly. Really remarkable how the fundie xtians are so often the most dishonest and conniving hacks on the planet.

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hahahah...oh man. So embarrassing to read. You know less than nothing about this topic. I mean that literally. You know nothing about it, and everything you think you know is wrong. You have net negative knowledge. A used condom has more net knowledge on evolution than you do.

Everything I post is linked, sources and documented, while you are merely our best source of greenhouse gases.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everything I post is linked, sources and documented, while you are merely our best source of greenhouse gases.

Yet here you are, a laughing stock who would fail sixth grade science quiz.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet here you are, a laughing stock who would fail sixth grade science quiz.

The vitriol is totally understandable. You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history.

Even when the proof is right before your eyes.....and in the linked, documented sources I provide.

You may be better prepared when you complete junior high.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The vitriol is totally understandable. You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history.

Even when the proof is right before your eyes.....and in the linked, documented sources I provide.

You may be better prepared when you complete junior high.

Then take your hilarious nonsense and publish your research. So we can all laugh at you.

No, your dumb ass will be left shouting into the void on anonymous message board. Forever. While 12 year olds around the world know more about a topic you have obsessed over your entire life than you do or ever will. How embarrassing for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then take your hilarious nonsense and publish your research. So we can all laugh at you.

No, your dumb ass will be left shouting into the void on anonymous message board. Forever. While 12 year olds around the world know more about a topic you have obsessed over your entire life than you do or ever will. How embarrassing for you.

Intelligent folks have the ability to incorporate new ideas, when one judges their veracity.
Those, like you, don't.

And that brings us to your second problem...after your lack of intellect.

You don't read books.

"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter


There's really nothing you can do.....it's your lot by birth.

 

[Hollie]

Intelligent folks have the ability to incorporate new ideas, when one judges their veracity.
Those, like you, don't.

And that brings us to your second problem...after your lack of intellect.

You don't read books.

"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter


There's really nothing you can do.....it's your lot by birth.

Wow. Remarkable just how clueless the ''quote mining'', AIG groupies really are.

When you make comments such as, ''Intelligent folks have the ability to incorporate new ideas,'', you define just how unintelligent you are. Your cutting and pasting of the same phony ''quotes'' multiple times across multiple threads tags you as unintelligent and unable to incorporate new ideas.

What a total buffion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Intelligent folks have the ability to incorporate new ideas, when one judges their veracity.
Those, like you, don't.

And apparently the entire, respected scientific community. Me, over here with them, and you, in the asylum with the spoonbenders, the alien abductees, the astrologists, and the voodoo priests.

Sounds fine to me! Back to the regularly scheduled flailing and wailing. I won't interrupt your swell thread again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

apparently the entire, respected scientific community. Me, over here with them, and you, in the asylum with the spoonbenders, the alien abductees, the astrologists, and the voodoo priests.

Sounds fine to me! Back to the regularly scheduled flailing and wailing. I won't interrupt your swell thread again.

It is tragic that you never had the sort of loving parents who would point you on the path to education.


Alas....it's probably too late for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When it comes right down to it, there is no importance in trying to argue of God’s existence. The important argument is God’s importance.

 

[Hollie]

When it comes right down to it, there is no importance in trying to argue of God’s existence. The important argument is God’s importance.

How sad that your gods are relegated to impo'tence by dishonest hacks who falsify ''quotes'' as a means to prop up their beliefs.

 

[malikc6]

Been quite some time since I've been on this website. I was still just a teenager when I first joined. Time flies.

In regards to this thread, there is currently no evidence that any god exists, or I should better state, there's no evidence that any PERSONAL god exists.

In Abrahamic religions, God is personal and wants a relationship with humans. When theists argue that a god could exist, they usually choose the Abrahamic god. A person that isn't of Abrahamic faith could just as easily argue for a god, or even a simple deist (non religious but believes in a deity) could do the same, but those arguing for god's existence usually want to preach the gospel, and attempt to convince people of their "True faith." You rarely see Hindus, Sikhists, or other religious representatives do this. Now in regards to evidence...

The closest thing that could possibly come close to this is whether the historical accuracy of Jesus is identical to what it says in the bible. A man claiming to be God (or the son of god) and healing the sick via omnipotence. It should be noted that the story of Jesus was written decades (possibly longer) after his death. We're ultimately taking people's words for what actually happened more than 2000 years ago.

It's so easily believed and accepted because it seems that for many people, there's something beautiful and poetic about how civilizations older than us had some idea on how humans and civilizations should be. How many of us know people that think that previous generations were stronger and smarter than we are now? How many have heard Boomers complain about the Millennials and Generation Z? This behavior has always been present in human history.

Regardless of that, despite many anecdotal stories, dreams/hallucinations, spiritual experiences, and arguments for a personal god existing, there's no physical evidence that such a thing exists. One could argue that god is outside of time and space and therefore can't be detected by humans, but a counter argument to that is that if one is outside time and space, how is that any different to just not existing? Plus you'd have to provide evidence that there's such a thing as being outside time and space. The more claims that one makes about where god is, the more evidence one must provide to prove that to be true.

Ultimately faith is why people believe in god. Faith by its very nature is not entirely rooted in logic. It is blind, delusional, and emotional. We are ALL vulnerable to this even if we don't believe in god or subscribe to a faith. We all have faith in something even if there's no particular reason to have it. It's human nature.

 

[surada]

You'll notice she'll refuse to divulge whether she's actually a Christian, though. Very un-Christian-like.

Her schtick is to cynically leverage Christianity as a weapon, a bludgeon, much like a Jihadi leverages Islam.

Birds of a feather.

I agree. They leverage religion, vaccines, the oil business... lots of things... As weapons. Scofield and Samuel untermyer did the same thing 100 years ago.