Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

Got to agree Shirina, it gets so extremely monotonous, I've stopped reading Rocs posts as I don't know when he has added to them or when he's simply rehashing the same words.

When quoting text which I have authored, trouble yourself to reproduce it accurately, with underlining and superscripted, and completely, including the Greek words and definitions you omitted.

It is my duty to edit out flatulence and banal verbosity, it is an obvious attempt to disguise utter guff.

The Big Bang describes how the Universe came into being, but not where everything came from, and it does not claim that everything came from nothing. These are the facts and no amount of semantic duplicity will alter them.

If you wield a big enough hammer you can fit any square peg into a round hole.

The fundamental meaning of words does not explain why there are two creation accounts in Genesis and both do not describe the Big Bang, you are wrong twofold.

There are many types of trolls.

The clue is in the title, there is only one kind of evidence that tests if things exist and that is scientific evidence, there is no scientific evidence that proves God exists.
One cannot logically deduce something exists if all evidence supports existence and no evidence disproves existence, there is no evidence to test, if there is no testable evidence then the hypothesis is empty of any scientific meaning.

The God hypothesis is a bare assertion, it is a bare assertion in Aramaic, Greek, Latin or English.

It is extremely easy for any believer to prove me wrong, provide just one scrap of testable evidence.

Denying science and its methods is not admissable evidence, it is yet another bare assertion.

Two bare assertions do not make a right, the claim " God exists " is a false statement.

If evolutuon is a scientific fact then the manner in which any animal evolved should be no problem as with all the vegitation etc;


Forget the butterfly, forget the oak tree, juist explain how a bee decides to have only one means of procreation and has a honey comb the shape it is, along with all the scientific examples of all those forms, which must be millions of the inbetweenies from which all the animals evolved.

As you say you need evidence, then show it.

In this case it would need every stage of the developement you think makes the basis for evolution.

My belief in God as the creator makes more sense than any other suggestion.

My proof is everywehre around you.

In this case it would need every stage of the developement you think makes the basis for evolution.

Ignorant fools do not tell science what or how it needs to prove anything.

My proof is everywehre around you.

Can you give me just one example when science agreed that a religious force was the explanation for a natural event?

You know, like, say, scientists agreeing that lightning is Zeus being angry or that rain is God's tears or a solar eclipse is Quetzelcoutl devouring the sun. That sort of thing.

For extra credit, if such an example exists, can you show me how that example proves more than just a God, but that your religion is true, as well?

You have at least 6,000 years of recorded history ... surely there must be one example, right?

Shirina,

The proof is everwhere actually means everything is proof, and we are right back to a claim devoid of content.

Denying science and its methods is not admissable evidence, it is yet another bare assertion.

Some peopple cannot read or comprehend plain English.

Only fools believe that which is pure speculation and are unable to answer
simple quesions.

You are right Tosh and some cannot write it as you prove so well.

and are unable to answer simple [b]quesions[/b]

LOLOLOLOL...........

and some cannot write it as you prove so well..

Oh dear, its like watching a suicide.

Only fools believe that which is pure speculation

Ignorant fools do not tell science what or how it needs to prove anything..

Denying science and its methods is not admissable evidence, it is yet another bare assertion.

I agree about fools denying the truth, so why?. Tosh, so why?

and are unable to answer simple questions.

Please explain the simple biological/genetic process from wolf to poodle.

I agree about fools denying the truth, so why?. Tosh, so why?.

Only you can answer this question, my guess is you are a troll or simply backward, either way I win.

Tosh you could not win a lolly pop from a two year old.

If all the dogs of every breed were left together without man's interference in a very short period of time they would revert to what man selectedly bred them from.

That is not evolution but selective breeding.

Oh, I do feel sorry for you Tosh.

If all the dogs of every breed were left together without man's interference in a very short period of time they would revert to what man selectedly bred them from.

I asked you to explain the simple biological/genetic process from wolf to poodle, the above is not an answer to what according to you is a simple question.

Then you can explain to me the simple biological/genetic process from poodle back to wolf since you seem to be an expert on reverse evolution.

I will wait here to be amazed by your knowledge.

I don't see any examples, yet.

polyglide...devoid of examples, devoid of answers, devoid of authority and devoid of evidence..........this woman is devoid of reason.

Give up, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

My belief in God as the creator makes more sense than any other suggestion.

It makes more sense to YOU than any other suggestion.

The defence rests.

If all the dogs of every breed were left together without man's interference in a very short period of time they would revert to what man selectedly bred them from.

Now imagine, poly, that one set of dogs is on an island, separated from all the other dogs. They will compete with each other for food, shelter and mates and the fittest ones will survive to pass on their genes. Before long, as you so rightly say, this group of dogs will not look like the groups of dogs on other islands or continents. They will have particular traits that are unique to their gene pool. Selective breeding is not much different to natural selection in that the females of most species select the mates that will give them the offspring with the best genes to survive. So when you isolate a species you limit the gene pool. And that is why the finches on the Galapagos islands are different species from island to island. That is why Australia has a unique zoology of marsupials that are not seen elsewhere in the world. That is evolution.

I think you've almost got it now.

I do not think, I know you have lost it.

Snowflake, in the situation you state the animal would revert to that which the genes created by God would determine and evolution is nothing like selective breeding.

In nature the animals decide their mates not man and in doing so they breed their own kind and nothing else.

You set off with a pack of wolves of varying sizes as in all animals there are small large and in between.

On an ongoing basis you select the smallest bred and breed only from them.

Eventually you reach a point that you require and only breed from those that have that which you are aiming for.

In this manner all the breeds of dogs and other animals have been produced that deviate from those that God created.

This would never happen without man's interferance.

If you cannot understand the above just ask any two year old to explain.

If you cannot understand the above just ask any two year old to explain.

.

I cannot understand your utter gibberish, and I assume you have the intelligence of a two year old.

Explain to me again how a poodle is going to revert back to a wolf again..lolol.

My oh my, you should not have your arms free, are you typing with your toes ?

Snowflake, in the situation you state the animal would revert to that which the genes created by God would determine and evolution is nothing like selective breeding.

And you know this, poly, because you are a scientist PhD in canines are you? You have studied all these disciplines...genetics, biochemistry, biology, zoology? I think you must realise at this point how silly you sound. You are trying to argue science with scientists and failing miserably. Faith does not stand up to facts. You can believe your brains out (which by all accounts you have done) but that does not change what science has discovered.

In nature the animals decide their mates not man and in doing so they breed their own kind and nothing else.

Yes, poly, and that is called natural selection. Natural selection and sexual selection is no different to selective breeding to determine ideal traits in a species.

Peacocks have huge, beautiful tails. These tails are ideal for attracting mates but they are very poor for flying. They weigh the peacock down. This makes peacocks ideal meals for predators. So those peacocks that have big, beautiful tails show the peahens that they have survived in spite of the weight of their tails. Peahens are impressed by this and think to themselves (not consciously of course....all by instinct) there goes a big peacock with a huge beautiful tail and he is strong because he has escaped predators and survived and if I mate with him, I will have big beautiful birds as offspring to carry on my DNA. That is sexual selection. The female makes the choices. Now, imagine a big beautiful peacock with huge attractive feathers that are so heavy that he cannot escape a predator and he is eaten. Oops, that peacock does not get to spread his DNA around the peahens. That is natural selection. In nature, the peacocks feathers are big and beautiful enough to attract females but light enough so he cannot escape a predator. That is how genes are transmitted throughout the generations and how species survive.

You will get there poly in spite of your poor education. You won't be able to deny the facts forever.

Right, I will expain in terms that even you can understand.

I have oviously given you more credit regarding intelligence than you deserve.

You start off with a number of poodles, you put them all together and leave them to their own devices.

The strongest will be the ones that breed and survive and will be those nearest the wolf.

After a period of time they will get closer and closer to the wolf and eventually return to the original species.

Poodles and all the other man made examples of different breeds of dogs have originated in the same manner.

LOL.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/07/shifting-the-balance-on-dogs/

First, your comment is false regarding dogs. Read, poly.

Snowflake, I could make a far better case for evolution than you or anyone on this site can.

The reason I do not, is because it is not a possibility when you consider all the implications.

You can pick and choose a peackock or any other animal and make out an excuse as to why and what, along with many other examples that appear
not seeming in our opinion, the problem is we do not understand all that we are aware of and there is much that is there that we are not aware of,
there is a reason for everything but just because we do not know all the reasons does not warrant making assumptions, which you so obviously and erroniously enjoy.

Read it and it says exactly what I have said they revert back to the original whatever it may be. It does not have to be a wolf.

The reason I do not, is because it is not a possibility when you consider all the implications.

Back to this old chestnut, polyglide appoints herself as an expert, its just certifiable trolling.

Read it and it says exactly what I have said they revert back to the original whatever it may be. It does not have to be a wolf..

I read it twice, I read it backwards and I read it upside down, it explains nothing, tell me HOW the domestic dog reverts back to a wolf, tell me what directs the biological and genetic reversal ?

I will wait here.

Obviously the evidence doesn't matter to poly. She views all such evidence as 'excuses' or as 'satan pulling the wool over our eyes' or as 'not as God says in the bible'.

The fact that she is using a computer sending messages over an internet that can be seen by any one of the 7 billion people on the planet doesn't seem to impress on her that science is why she is able to do so. Incredible hubris on her part.

Snowy,

There are just too many clues in the frequency and content of her posts, if polyglide is not a wind-up troll then she is a wind up clock.

The fact that she is using a computer sending messages over an internet that can be seen by any one of the 7 billion people on the planet doesn't seem to impress on her that science is why she is able to do so.

"Creationists will happily dine at the table of science and then brutally attack it with an axe" -- thunderf00t (popular YouTube atheist)

Tosh, I doubt very much if you know the difference between the two.

I may be a wind up merchant but then you make it so easy.

There is nothing wrong in taking advantage of new technology, for instance it would take me far longer to explain just how wrong you are on almost everything you say using the old methods.

There is nothing wrong in taking advantage of new technology

Indeed. However, Creationists tend to cherry pick science in the same way they cherry pick Bible verses. It's like a belief smorgasbord ... take what you want and leave the rest.

I may be a wind up merchant but then you make it so easy.

You are doing a fantastic job of pretending to be deranged without any input from me.

Carry on.

There is a big difference between pretending to be deranged and actually being deranged, you accept I am pretending, a pity I cannot return the compliment.

There is a big difference between pretending to be deranged and actually being deranged, you accept I am pretending, a pity I cannot return the compliment. .

Being called deranged by polyglide is the highest compliment of them all.

Try again sucker...lolol.

Glad you accept the fact that you are deranged, it explains a lot and no doubt further posts will reinforce the fact.

You, as I have said on another post, are way out of your depth, keep to the junior level where you belong and you may have better luck.

Glad you accept the fact that you are deranged, it explains a lot and no doubt further posts will reinforce the fact.

mmm, not too good at reading are you dear ?

You, as I have said on another post, are way out of your depth, keep to the junior level where you belong and you may have better luck.

Keep the delusions going fruitcake, you are convincing noone.