Post Any Evidence For God Here

[jonesthecurl]

The mystery about building pyramids is how they did it, the time in which they supposedly did it, the tools they supposedly used. Two million stones coming from 500 miles away built in 20 years with brass chisels and stone. The main tunnel to the inner chamber 300 feet perfectly level. The inner chamber has different stones that fit perfectly inside the chamber. The pyramid built within five hundredth of a degree due north. Perfectly under the north star. There is a 100 mile band that stretches around the earth that hits most pyramids from SA to Africa. No wheels involved to build this structure.

500 miles?

A horseshoe-shaped quarry lies just south of Khufu’s Great Pyramid and the Khafre pyramid causeway. The sides of the quarry align with the sides of the Khufu Pyramid.

Lehner suspected that this great pit furnished most of the local stone for the core of the Great Pyramid. He calculated the missing volume of stone and compared the sum to the volume of the Great Pyramid (see MDAIK 41, 1985).

The blocks were apparently moved on sleds. the sand in front of the sleds was dampened to make the movement easier (just as it's easier to walk over wet sand at the beach. threre are clear pictures of this by the Egyptians.

[Metsfanmax]

@Betiko, glad to read you used "most probable" theory instead of fact. I'm fine with your belief, just glad to read an evolutionist acknowledge that evolution is not fact and there is some faith to the theory or for the theory.

Don't worry, I'll save the day by pointing out that evolution is, indeed, a fact.

Though I'm not an evolutionist. I'm just not a history-denier.

[Gillipig]

@Betiko, glad to read you used "most probable" theory instead of fact. I'm fine with your belief, just glad to read an evolutionist acknowledge that evolution is not fact and there is some faith to the theory or for the theory.

Don't worry, I'll save the day by pointing out that evolution is, indeed, a fact.

Though I'm not an evolutionist. I'm just not a history-denier.

It is the scientific theory with the most data backing it up, we can be more confident that evolution exists than that our planet is spherical. Evolution should be treated as a fact by everyone who is not doing scientific research to specifically try to figure out whether it exists or not. Just as the common fool doesn't question gravity, the common fool shouldn't question evolution. It is not something you can question from your armchair, the way to question evolution is to demonstrate why all the evidence for it is false, something you literally can not do without your own scientific research, as all existing research have only served to prove the validity of evolution.

[Ray Rider]

Did I say ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NUMB NUTTS???? No you little troll. Nor did I say they were superior or more advanced. The fact is that we really have no idea how its done, only speculation. I may be thick but I will break you like a twig. You and Kuethor must be from the same gene pool of trolls and gremlins. Hear what you want. I bet your a big fan of ignorance and stupidity as that's what you seem to know the most about.

This post can be summed up as essentially "OH YEAH??! Well you're a diaper!"


--Andy

This humor reminds me of A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...

[universalchiro]

@Betiko, glad to read you used "most probable" theory instead of fact. I'm fine with your belief, just glad to read an evolutionist acknowledge that evolution is not fact and there is some faith to the theory or for the theory.

Don't worry, I'll save the day by pointing out that evolution is, indeed, a fact.

Though I'm not an evolutionist. I'm just not a history-denier.

It is the scientific theory with the most data backing it up, we can be more confident that evolution exists than that our planet is spherical. Evolution should be treated as a fact by everyone who is not doing scientific research to specifically try to figure out whether it exists or not. Just as the common fool doesn't question gravity, the common fool shouldn't question evolution. It is not something you can question from your armchair, the way to question evolution is to demonstrate why all the evidence for it is false, something you literally can not do without your own scientific research, as all existing research have only served to prove the validity of evolution.

This is rife with deductive errors and false statements, the logical conclusion is you are the armchair believer in evolution. Let's test you out and see your knowledge, answer these questions:

1. Name 5 examples of mutations that resulted in increased complexity of a life.
2. Name one example of spontaneous life from non-living material.
3. Site source where an evolutionary process of change of creature from one kind to another that is observable.

[crispybits]

1) Evolution says NOTHING about complexity. It is suitability to the environment and adaptability to change that are the two main measures of species survival.
2) Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis. Literally, nothing!
3) Evolution says NOTHING about kinds. That is a creationist fiction without a concrete definition.

So please UC, elaborate on how your questions show you to accurately comprehend any more than NOTHING about what the theory of evolution actually says?

And, just for fun, how about you show how, if we assume evolution to be wrong, the disproof of evolution is positive proof for any other theory?

[universalchiro]

1) Evolution says NOTHING about complexity. It is suitability to the environment and adaptability to change that are the two main measures of species survival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity
2) Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis. Literally, nothing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
3) Evolution says NOTHING about kinds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Well, we disagree and I thought you knew more about what you believe, I must say, I'm a little shocked that you would be the one making these errors, you usually lead the pack with knowledge and well written posts. If I see you believing blue is blue and I say you believe blue is blue, and then you come back with evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis, evolution says nothing about kinds, evolution says nothing about the simple single celled organism evolving towards more complexities, then we have ended our discussion. For you can't see what you believe. but I understand your vehement denial of what you believe, for it's non-observable, non-testable.

you say evolution says literally nothing about abiogenesis? you may want to do more research on this

Nobody saw the Big Bang, it's not observable, not testable, can't do it again in a laboratory, you have faith that this occurred based on tenuous observation of the cosmos. To think otherwise that this is fact is self denial and beyond further discussion, now if you agree you believe it occurred based on what cosmologist are telling you is the prevailing theory, then fine. But when evolutionist venture into "it's fact", then logical debates are over and we enter into the beginning new era of evolutionary inquisition.

We observe every animal on earth always produce the same kind of creature, there is no observation of a different kind being produced. Sure there is adaptation, but to extrapolate to the extreme that adaptation equals evolution of changes of kind given enough time, is faith based since this has never been observed. You are seeing adaptation that does occur and assuming it equals changes into different kinds.

Nobody saw the first single cell organism become alive, you have read what other evolutionist have proposed and you buy it as fact, but nobody ever saw the first organism become alive. It's not observable, not repeatable, not testable and has failed laboratory duplication.

Hey, believe what ever you want, but evolutionist are deluding themselves that evolution is fact, it's a theory.

[AndyDufresne]

We observe every animal on earth always produce the same kind of creature, there is no observation of a different kind being produced.

This is very true. I have yet to see a human give birth to a duck, and a duck give birth to dog. This alone puts the nail in the coffin against evolution, try as you may crispy et al.

Now, I'm off to do more research regarding the mud from rivers into the oceans.

But hey, believe what you ever want.


--Andy

[universalchiro]

The belief of evolution goes all the way to the top. You'll frequently hear phrases such as "they would have been", which is code for we believe. I get a kick out of armchair evolutionist that don't know the very top elite believers in your movement say they believe, yet you extrapolate and elevate to fact. For an evolutionist to do so, is intellectual suicide.

Richard Dawkins admits that there is no observable evidence today of evolution, but if you had been there 300 million years ago, then you would see the first fish walk onto land and become the first amphibian. How delightful. So evolution can't be seen today, but 300 million years ago. This is faith based at it's grandest gesture.

[AndyDufresne]

The belief of evolution goes all the way to the top.

Very much agreed -- it goes all way to the top of the sky. At that point, people start to realize the world is hollow, for I have touched the sky.




--Andy

[kuthoer]

The belief of evolution goes all the way to the top. You'll frequently hear phrases such as "they would have been", which is code for we believe. I get a kick out of armchair evolutionist that don't know the very top elite believers in your movement say they believe, yet you extrapolate and elevate to fact. For an evolutionist to do so, is intellectual suicide.

Richard Dawkins admits that there is no observable evidence today of evolution, but if you had been there 300 million years ago, then you would see the first fish walk onto land and become the first amphibian. How delightful. So evolution can't be seen today, but 300 million years ago. This is faith based at it's grandest gesture.

Evolution is happening now and has always since the one cell organism existed. You don't have to look 300 million years ago. Evolution is still happening, but it's a slow process.

[universalchiro]

The belief of evolution goes all the way to the top. You'll frequently hear phrases such as "they would have been", which is code for we believe. I get a kick out of armchair evolutionist that don't know the very top elite believers in your movement say they believe, yet you extrapolate and elevate to fact. For an evolutionist to do so, is intellectual suicide.

Richard Dawkins admits that there is no observable evidence today of evolution, but if you had been there 300 million years ago, then you would see the first fish walk onto land and become the first amphibian. How delightful. So evolution can't be seen today, but 300 million years ago. This is faith based at it's grandest gesture.

Evolution is happening now and has always since the one cell organism existed. You don't have to look 300 million years ago. Evolution is still happening, but it's a slow process.

I know, I agree, so slow that no one today can observe evolutionary changes of kind, only thing observable today is adaptation within the same kind, ie it's faith based. No way around it.

[kuthoer]

The belief of evolution goes all the way to the top. You'll frequently hear phrases such as "they would have been", which is code for we believe. I get a kick out of armchair evolutionist that don't know the very top elite believers in your movement say they believe, yet you extrapolate and elevate to fact. For an evolutionist to do so, is intellectual suicide.

Richard Dawkins admits that there is no observable evidence today of evolution, but if you had been there 300 million years ago, then you would see the first fish walk onto land and become the first amphibian. How delightful. So evolution can't be seen today, but 300 million years ago. This is faith based at it's grandest gesture.

Evolution is happening now and has always since the one cell organism existed. You don't have to look 300 million years ago. Evolution is still happening, but it's a slow process.

I know, I agree, so slow that no one today can observe evolutionary changes of kind, only thing observable today is adaptation within the same kind, ie it's faith based. No way around it.

Evolution is not faith based like religion aka superstition. Evolution is based on scientific facts.

[universalchiro]

Now now kuethoer, you haven't been reading the above post or ignored the above post or other regarding the above posts, you skipped the part about huge foundation sections of Evolution that are not scientific fact. You provide lip service, no different than the guy on the street corner saying Jesus is coming, it's Biblical fact!

[AndyDufresne]

You provide lip service

Whose lips need servicing, and are their rates comparable to AoG?


--Andy

[tzor]

The mystery about building pyramids is how they did it, the time in which they supposedly did it, the tools they supposedly used. Two million stones coming from 500 miles away built in 20 years with brass chisels and stone. The main tunnel to the inner chamber 300 feet perfectly level. The inner chamber has different stones that fit perfectly inside the chamber. The pyramid built within five hundredth of a degree due north. Perfectly under the north star. There is a 100 mile band that stretches around the earth that hits most pyramids from SA to Africa. No wheels involved to build this structure.

Sigh, that is so ... yesterday.

First of all, if you water down sand you can move huge stones over it. This is actually illustrated in the drawings in the pyramids and has actually been tested and proven correct.
Second, water is the best leveling device known to man. Modern levels use water with a small bubble of air but it's pretty easy to make a simple level device out of wood. When I was in college I worked for people who hung ceilings and before they started using laser levels they used hoses filled with ... water.

The real mystery is why people think you always need high tech to accomplish mighty deeds. You just need some not always common sense.

If possible stones intented to be laid down on the pyramid next to each other were also broken next to each other in the quarry. This automatically meant, that the blocks were of the same height and that they fitted to each other along the line of cleavage (breakage). So after splitting the stones, the quarrymen only had to control the longitudinal side and check if the line of breakage really fitted to each other. This had to be done carefully, because only small changes could still be made after the stone had been transported up the pyramid. If the stones didn't fit well, this was changed with hammer, chisel and other tools.

Note that the majority of the stones were made from limestone. (Mohs hardness of 4) Granite has a Mohs hardness of 6-8. Most quarries were near the site or near the Nile.

[kuthoer]

You provide lip service

Whose lips need servicing, and are their rates comparable to AoG?


--Andy

Andy I'll undercut AOG rates, cause I have low overhead and my employees are illegal aliens and will work for peanuts and/or bananas with no benefits,

[AndyDufresne]

You provide lip service

Whose lips need servicing, and are their rates comparable to AoG?


--Andy

Andy I'll undercut AOG rates, cause I have low overhead and my employees are illegal aliens and will work for peanuts and/or bananas with no benefits,

Ending your sentence with a comma sold me on your product. But I'll have betiko test things out first, since naturally, he's French-ish.


--Andy

[warmonger1981]

Old news huh??? Moving the stones was the easy part. Please explain how the stacked them. Provence strategy please. As far as I know Europeans could only get within one twenty fifth of a degree due north in 1700' s. It must be high tech if we still cant figure it out 2000 years later.

[Gillipig]

You provide lip service

Whose lips need servicing, and are their rates comparable to AoG?


--Andy

Andy I'll undercut AOG rates, cause I have low overhead and my employees are illegal aliens and will work for peanuts and/or bananas with no benefits,

Ending your sentence with a comma sold me on your product. But I'll have betiko test things out first, since naturally, he's French-ish.


--Andy

I was under the impression colonialist were the guinea pigs, perhaps you should try it out yourself or hire another Canadian, Mexican, American or perhaps a Brazilian (waxer).

[crispybits]

1) Evolution says NOTHING about complexity. It is suitability to the environment and adaptability to change that are the two main measures of species survival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity
2) Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis. Literally, nothing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
3) Evolution says NOTHING about kinds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Well, we disagree and I thought you knew more about what you believe, I must say, I'm a little shocked that you would be the one making these errors, you usually lead the pack with knowledge and well written posts. If I see you believing blue is blue and I say you believe blue is blue, and then you come back with evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis, evolution says nothing about kinds, evolution says nothing about the simple single celled organism evolving towards more complexities, then we have ended our discussion. For you can't see what you believe. but I understand your vehement denial of what you believe, for it's non-observable, non-testable.

you say evolution says literally nothing about abiogenesis? you may want to do more research on this

Nobody saw the Big Bang, it's not observable, not testable, can't do it again in a laboratory, you have faith that this occurred based on tenuous observation of the cosmos. To think otherwise that this is fact is self denial and beyond further discussion, now if you agree you believe it occurred based on what cosmologist are telling you is the prevailing theory, then fine. But when evolutionist venture into "it's fact", then logical debates are over and we enter into the beginning new era of evolutionary inquisition.

We observe every animal on earth always produce the same kind of creature, there is no observation of a different kind being produced. Sure there is adaptation, but to extrapolate to the extreme that adaptation equals evolution of changes of kind given enough time, is faith based since this has never been observed. You are seeing adaptation that does occur and assuming it equals changes into different kinds.

Nobody saw the first single cell organism become alive, you have read what other evolutionist have proposed and you buy it as fact, but nobody ever saw the first organism become alive. It's not observable, not repeatable, not testable and has failed laboratory duplication.

Hey, believe what ever you want, but evolutionist are deluding themselves that evolution is fact, it's a theory.

OK UC, before this line of thought can go any further you need to clarify, in very specific terms, what you mean by some terms.

Complexity: Is this more DNA chromosones? More limbs? Different internal organs? How do you suggest we measure life forms on a scale of "complexity" - what are the metrics?

Kinds: How excatly do you determine what a kind is? Does it rougly correlate to species or families or genera or classes in scientific terms? Scientists do not use the word "kind" in taxonomical contexts.

(Information: What is information int he context of life? How do we define and measure it?) - only bother with this one if you are going to use it as part of your arguments, but if you don't and then throw gibberish around about "information" then I will ask you to define it.

Also - we've had this conversation before, probably in this very thread or the evolution one that was active back then, and I ripped apart every contention you made. I'm more than happy to show everyone once again why you lack intellectual honesty and have a supremely limited understanding of the theory you are trying so very hard to discredit if you want, but if you want to have a scientific discussion about scientific matters then you have to use scientific language, or alternatively define the language you are using in scientific terms that are specific and clear...

[Metsfanmax]

I'm more than happy to show everyone once again why you lack intellectual honesty

If you think UC lacks intellectual honesty, why bother having a conversation with him?

[crispybits]

Because demonstrating once again how he can't actually back up his arguments using anything other than really dodgy apologetic tap-dancing has value too. I don't think I'll ever convince him, but when someone makes BS claims those BS claims should be challenged and shown to be BS.

[universalchiro]

1) Evolution says NOTHING about complexity. It is suitability to the environment and adaptability to change that are the two main measures of species survival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity
2) Evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis. Literally, nothing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
3) Evolution says NOTHING about kinds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Well, we disagree and I thought you knew more about what you believe, I must say, I'm a little shocked that you would be the one making these errors, you usually lead the pack with knowledge and well written posts. If I see you believing blue is blue and I say you believe blue is blue, and then you come back with evolution says NOTHING about abiogenesis, evolution says nothing about kinds, evolution says nothing about the simple single celled organism evolving towards more complexities, then we have ended our discussion. For you can't see what you believe. but I understand your vehement denial of what you believe, for it's non-observable, non-testable.

you say evolution says literally nothing about abiogenesis? you may want to do more research on this

Nobody saw the Big Bang, it's not observable, not testable, can't do it again in a laboratory, you have faith that this occurred based on tenuous observation of the cosmos. To think otherwise that this is fact is self denial and beyond further discussion, now if you agree you believe it occurred based on what cosmologist are telling you is the prevailing theory, then fine. But when evolutionist venture into "it's fact", then logical debates are over and we enter into the beginning new era of evolutionary inquisition.

We observe every animal on earth always produce the same kind of creature, there is no observation of a different kind being produced. Sure there is adaptation, but to extrapolate to the extreme that adaptation equals evolution of changes of kind given enough time, is faith based since this has never been observed. You are seeing adaptation that does occur and assuming it equals changes into different kinds.

Nobody saw the first single cell organism become alive, you have read what other evolutionist have proposed and you buy it as fact, but nobody ever saw the first organism become alive. It's not observable, not repeatable, not testable and has failed laboratory duplication.

Hey, believe what ever you want, but evolutionist are deluding themselves that evolution is fact, it's a theory.

Crispy, You are still waiting for my next move, but I already checkmated you and left the table. Why don't you solve your 3 erroneous, blatantly wrong statements before challenging me with another match. I draw your attention to the bold print adjacent to your 3 false statements regarding your own doctrine.

[Metsfanmax]

Because demonstrating once again how he can't actually back up his arguments using anything other than really dodgy apologetic tap-dancing has value too. I don't think I'll ever convince him, but when someone makes BS claims those BS claims should be challenged and shown to be BS.

At the risk of being cliche...



If you really want to have impact and teach people good scientific and critical thinking skills, go teach middle school science. By the time people make it to an internet forum, they've already formed their religious worldview and as you say, it's very unlikely that we can change it. I agree that in the limit of infinite time, BS claims should be called for their BS. But we should spend our time wisely.

(Please understand that I don't mean it's always a waste of time to argue with creationists. I do it when I think there is something useful I can learn on a subject, because it provokes me to think about something in new ways. For example, I'm curious as to what UC thinks "information" content means when considering evolution, because I've never considered that as an aspect of evolution, even though I imagine there's lots of cool things to consider in that area.)