Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

Space, matter (energy) and time are all that exist then? Is that your final answer?

[waauw]

Only when you spout ridiculous straw man arguments like that Viceroy.

Science doesn't say that nothing exploded.

And science also doesn't say that some sort of God type thingamibob didn't make everything - that's still possible - just that your particular bunch of stone age fairy tales is false, along with your delusions about worldwide floods and a 6000 year old human race that started with a guy made from dirt and a woman made from a rib...

as opposed to "star stuff and rocks" that came from nothing?

BTW: Science does concur that once there was nothing. That all of the space, matter and time that composes our universe, had a beginning and that before then there was nothing. No space, matter or time.

Science doesn't concur at all. There are multiple theories and at the moment none of 'm are really prevailing as the fact of the matter is we just don't know. Our knowledge of the universe isn't advanced enough yet

[Viceroy63]

Only when you spout ridiculous straw man arguments like that Viceroy.

Science doesn't say that nothing exploded.

And science also doesn't say that some sort of God type thingamibob didn't make everything - that's still possible - just that your particular bunch of stone age fairy tales is false, along with your delusions about worldwide floods and a 6000 year old human race that started with a guy made from dirt and a woman made from a rib...

as opposed to "star stuff and rocks" that came from nothing?

BTW: Science does concur that once there was nothing. That all of the space, matter and time that composes our universe, had a beginning and that before then there was nothing. No space, matter or time.

Science doesn't concur at all. There are multiple theories and at the moment none of 'm are really prevailing as the fact of the matter is we just don't know. Our knowledge of the universe isn't advanced enough yet

You must watch this then.



"All the evidence says that the universe had a beginning."

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologist can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin, (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p. 176).

[crispybits]

OK, even if we grant that the universe had an ultimate beginning (and I'm not saying I do at gone 4am on the strength of a one-sided 15 minute video, I want to do research into this myself first too), there's still a HUGE gap in thinking between that and "God of the bible done it"

Worth noting here too that the talks in this video on more than one occasion make reference to "if the inflationary model of the universe is correct". This is far from established scientific fact, indeed Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation. Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10^10^100.

(remember when responding to this your previous arguments in this forum about the impossibility of abiogenesis because of the improbability factor of 10^123 or something similar for a protein to form by random chemical reactions. 10^123 fits into 10^10^100 approximately 0.813 x 10^10^99 times over, so by those calculations, and going by the words of the guy that invented the inflationary model that this conclusion relies upon, the inflationary universe model is wayyyyy beyond impossible in and of itself)

(PS I would make yet another observation about creationist arguments using out of date or out of context sceince as irrefutable proof of something, but what's the point.... oh dammit I just did anyway...)

[Viceroy63]

I don't know all of the math and the equations except that I know it has to do with einstein's equation and the speed of light being the constant of the universe as the evidence, but I do get the idea of it.

The universe is in forward motion, expanding. Therefore it had to expand from some point. A universe that is not in any kind of motion could probably not even exist. There has to be some force driving it in some kind of a direction. This force is what is the point of it all. What is that force? Is that force God? And if so does He/It reveals Himself and is there a reason and a purpose?

Since the evidence points to a beginning then it is logical to assign a Beginner to it all, or else how could something just start all on it's own? That's the point of the mathematical evidence and the evidence of the existence of God.

I would also point out that those who try and argue for an eternal universe are simply arguing for a creation without a Creator. It's that simple to me anyway.

[chang50]

I don't know all of the math and the equations except that I know it has to do with einstein's equation and the speed of light being the constant of the universe as the evidence, but I do get the idea of it.

The universe is in forward motion, expanding. Therefore it had to expand from some point. A universe that is not in any kind of motion could probably not even exist. There has to be some force driving it in some kind of a direction. This force is what is the point of it all. What is that force? Is that force God? And if so does He/It reveals Himself and is there a reason and a purpose?

Since the evidence points to a beginning then it is logical to assign a Beginner to it all, or else how could something just start all on it's own? That's the point of the mathematical evidence and the evidence of the existence of God.

I would also point out that those who try and argue for an eternal universe are simply arguing for a creation without a Creator. It's that simple to me anyway.

It's even simpler to me,how about we just don't know how it all started,and anyone who thinks they do is arrogant..

[crispybits]

I don't know all of the math and the equations except that I know it has to do with einstein's equation and the speed of light being the constant of the universe as the evidence, but I do get the idea of it.

The universe is in forward motion, expanding. Therefore it had to expand from some point. A universe that is not in any kind of motion could probably not even exist. There has to be some force driving it in some kind of a direction. This force is what is the point of it all. What is that force? Is that force God? And if so does He/It reveals Himself and is there a reason and a purpose?

Since the evidence points to a beginning then it is logical to assign a Beginner to it all, or else how could something just start all on it's own? That's the point of the mathematical evidence and the evidence of the existence of God.

I would also point out that those who try and argue for an eternal universe are simply arguing for a creation without a Creator. It's that simple to me anyway.

But you don't get the context of the idea. Inflationary theory is just one among many models of how the universe works. There are problems with it such that one of it's original creators has now turned his back on it and argues vehemently against it. All of the evidence presented in that video is presented under the assumtion that the inflationary model is correct. Now this could be true still, but it's a massive assumption to make when science has not declared that the model works for all phenomena we see around us in the universe.

It's a bit like you assuming that gravity is caused by the same basic mechnisms as magentism but through an as yet undiscovered subatomic particle called the gravitram which we could potentially do experiments to find with the large hadron collider or similar equipment, and that this proves something about the dark energy that is pushing the universe apart into an ever increasing expansion. We could probably agree that assuming the gravitram exists, then this would have certain implications about dark energy and follow the maths and see how it all works out, but because we have to make that assumption there is still a big gap between declaring that under the gravitram model dark energy has a property, and declaring that dark energy actually does have that property.

Now imagine a bunch of other scientists came up with probems with the gravitram model, and alternative models of how gravity worked. Each model (including the gravitram model) has flaws and bits and pieces that don't reconcile with measurable data. Would you feel confident with saying that "dark energy absolutely definitely has this or that sort of property, because the gravitram model says so"? No scientists would. What you think the BVG theory proves it doesn't necessarily prove, first we have to prove the inflationary model of the universe, and that's not been done yet. If we can do that then BGV will become a much more potent argument for an ultimate beginning for sure, but it's not a done deal, and as such it's not firm evidence for anything (yet).

[waauw]

I don't know all of the math and the equations except that I know it has to do with einstein's equation and the speed of light being the constant of the universe as the evidence, but I do get the idea of it.

The universe is in forward motion, expanding. Therefore it had to expand from some point. A universe that is not in any kind of motion could probably not even exist. There has to be some force driving it in some kind of a direction. This force is what is the point of it all. What is that force? Is that force God? And if so does He/It reveals Himself and is there a reason and a purpose?

Since the evidence points to a beginning then it is logical to assign a Beginner to it all, or else how could something just start all on it's own? That's the point of the mathematical evidence and the evidence of the existence of God.

I would also point out that those who try and argue for an eternal universe are simply arguing for a creation without a Creator. It's that simple to me anyway.

it's that simple to you because your mind doesn't go any further than simple,
anything that gets even a bit more complex gets shut out...

Stop taking theories out of their context. Inflationary theory is just one model out of many.
Also keep in mind that there is always the possibility that the speed of light isn't constant. Here's an example of scientists discussing this possibility:

http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed- ... stant.html

[Viceroy63]

I don't know all of the math and the equations except that I know it has to do with einstein's equation and the speed of light being the constant of the universe as the evidence, but I do get the idea of it.

The universe is in forward motion, expanding. Therefore it had to expand from some point. A universe that is not in any kind of motion could probably not even exist. There has to be some force driving it in some kind of a direction. This force is what is the point of it all. What is that force? Is that force God? And if so does He/It reveals Himself and is there a reason and a purpose?

Since the evidence points to a beginning then it is logical to assign a Beginner to it all, or else how could something just start all on it's own? That's the point of the mathematical evidence and the evidence of the existence of God.

I would also point out that those who try and argue for an eternal universe are simply arguing for a creation without a Creator. It's that simple to me anyway.

It's even simpler to me,how about we just don't know how it all started,and anyone who thinks they do is arrogant..

Sure we can do it that way and just deny the actual evidence of a beginning and the logic of a beginner but what would that prove except that we really are arrogant!

Science can prove mathematically the existence of God in the created Universe.
Our own DNA construct proves the existence of God.
The actions of God in a world wide catastrophe (A world wide flood) are also self evident.
His own inspired word of Future events and knowledge that is otherwise unattainable by man is again evidence of God.
Faith in God is not blind but based on factual evidence of His existence.

When the telescope was first invented and men could see for the first time more clearly the other worlds around us and what is happening in our universe, most men of science actually refused to even look through it. They did not want to change their preconceived ideas of the nature of the universe around them. They were not ignorant, they were arrogant. Even today as we brain wash our young minds to believe in false ideas of an eternal universe or evolution as truth and fact we are continually refusing to look into the telescope so as not to change our own preconceived notions that there can not be a God in the universe. But in the end our arrogance does not change the facts of the existence of God, the nature of our universe and what we really are.

To turn a blind eye to all this body of evidence truly does make us arrogant and not ignorant of the fact of the existence of God and worthy of any judgment that the Creator may have upon his creation. That each man is personally asked to choose is a testament to God's love and concern for us. We don't all suffer together as a whole the consequence of Humanity's decision, although we do share in the effects of the existence of sin in this world but each of us can be saved from such a death warrant issued by God from the very beginning of Creation. We can choose to examine the evidence and believe the facts and live, or to be arrogant about it, not look through the telescope and simply die in our ignorance. The choice is ours.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:"
- Deuteronomy 30:19
--------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to that above comment about the speed of light...

Some scientists are a bit skeptical, though. Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said he wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would.

In other words, some scientist simply want to draw attention to themselves and do not apply mathematical tools the way that most would in order to make a noise and get published. In time it won't even matter that they said that the speed of light may not be a constant so long as they gain some recognition for the noise that they made. Some one is bound to remember their names some where down the road and that is what matters most to them.

I seem to recall another article about the constant speed of light being broken by some quarks particle. This has yet to be proven. What it has done was open the door to the possibility that our reality is not all that there is and that there may be a way to travel faster than the speed of light but not really only that you would be traveling inter-dimensionally out of our reality and back in, instantaneously at a different point in our reality, as apparently those quarks did.

I just want to note that the speed of light is a provable and undeniable constant according to Einsteins Theory of relativity. Time and matter changes, light speed does not. Vacuum or not.

[chang50]

I don't know all of the math and the equations except that I know it has to do with einstein's equation and the speed of light being the constant of the universe as the evidence, but I do get the idea of it.

The universe is in forward motion, expanding. Therefore it had to expand from some point. A universe that is not in any kind of motion could probably not even exist. There has to be some force driving it in some kind of a direction. This force is what is the point of it all. What is that force? Is that force God? And if so does He/It reveals Himself and is there a reason and a purpose?

Since the evidence points to a beginning then it is logical to assign a Beginner to it all, or else how could something just start all on it's own? That's the point of the mathematical evidence and the evidence of the existence of God.

I would also point out that those who try and argue for an eternal universe are simply arguing for a creation without a Creator. It's that simple to me anyway.

It's even simpler to me,how about we just don't know how it all started,and anyone who thinks they do is arrogant..

Sure we can do it that way and just deny the actual evidence of a beginning and the logic of a beginner but what would that prove except that we really are arrogant!

Science can prove mathematically the existence of God in the created Universe.
Our own DNA construct proves the existence of God.
The actions of God in a world wide catastrophe (A world wide flood) are also self evident.
His own inspired word of Future events and knowledge that is otherwise unattainable by man is again evidence of God.
Faith in God is not blind but based on factual evidence of His existence.

When the telescope was first invented and men could see for the first time more clearly the other worlds around us and what is happening in our universe, most men of science actually refused to even look through it. They did not want to change their preconceived ideas of the nature of the universe around them. They were not ignorant, they were arrogant. Even today as we brain wash our young minds to believe in false ideas of an eternal universe or evolution as truth and fact we are continually refusing to look into the telescope so as not to change our own preconceived notions that there can not be a God in the universe. But in the end our arrogance does not change the facts of the existence of God, the nature of our universe and what we really are.

To turn a blind eye to all this body of evidence truly does make us arrogant and not ignorant of the fact of the existence of God and worthy of any judgment that the Creator may have upon his creation. That each man is personally asked to choose is a testament to God's love and concern for us. We don't all suffer together as a whole the consequence of Humanity's decision, although we do share in the effects of the existence of sin in this world but each of us can be saved from such a death warrant issued by God from the very beginning of Creation. We can choose to examine the evidence and believe the facts or to be arrogant about it and simply die in our ignorance. The choice is ours.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:"
- Deuteronomy 30:19

You are arrogating knowledge that is way beyond our partially evolved mammalian species' ability to understand,that is the very personification of arrogance.and a tad fatuous to boot.No doubt you and your ilk will carry on believing you are so special as to be favoured with so much understanding of incredibly complex and gigantuan questions and then to top it off claim your beliefs are sooo humble.I don't know whether to laugh or cry..

[Viceroy63]

I do not perceive myself as special or better than anyone else. Only that I made my choice and leave the rest in God's hands. The same as you only you do not know it yet because you choose not to see it for yourself. You refuse to look through the telescope. You have made your choice and the rest is in God's hands.

[waauw]

I do not perceive myself as special or better than anyone else. Only that I made my choice and leave the rest in God's hands. The same as you only you do not know it yet because you choose not to see it for yourself. You refuse to look through the telescope. You have made your choice and the rest is in God's hands.

Dude you're an idiot. When Galileo used the telescope to determine heliocentrism, it was dismissed by the church...
Not the other way around.

[chang50]

I do not perceive myself as special or better than anyone else. Only that I made my choice and leave the rest in God's hands. The same as you only you do not know it yet because you choose not to see it for yourself. You refuse to look through the telescope. You have made your choice and the rest is in God's hands.

You may not realise it but any claim to knowledge about the big questions of existence is arrogant...

[tzor]

Dude you're an idiot. When Galileo used the telescope to determine heliocentrism, it was dismissed by the church...

Idiots abound here; as to the blatantly ignorant. Galileo based his argument that the sun was at the center of the universe (and did not move) on tidal evidence, not on his telescope.

Of course when he used his telescope to proclaim that the moon, (the beautiful moon, the large thing in the sky lovers look at) was scared and ugly, those Italians had a fit! The assumption was anything "closer to God" had to be "perfect."

The actual model he used was no less complex than the model that put the earth in the center of the universe. Most church people got confused by both of them. Even I get confused by both of them, but at least I understand Fourier Transforms and why these funny models developed. (Circles within circles ... that's a spirograph ... and I can make square orbits if I wanted to and use enough circles.)

The church dismissed the notion that since the sun doesn't actually "move" in the sky but there is a passage that says at one point the sun "stood still" that the BIBLE IS IN ERROR.

It's not "ERROR" it's a point of view from some ancient guy in the middle of a damn battle.

The fact remains that the church was a major supporter of science in all its forms. Mechanical clocks were developed by monks. Monks also were the first to scientifically study heredity in plants. (Yes, monks had a lot of time on their hands.) They established the first universities. The notion that the church was anti-science is a 19th century secular fiction.

[waauw]

Dude you're an idiot. When Galileo used the telescope to determine heliocentrism, it was dismissed by the church...

Idiots abound here; as to the blatantly ignorant. Galileo based his argument that the sun was at the center of the universe (and did not move) on tidal evidence, not on his telescope.

Of course when he used his telescope to proclaim that the moon, (the beautiful moon, the large thing in the sky lovers look at) was scared and ugly, those Italians had a fit! The assumption was anything "closer to God" had to be "perfect."

The actual model he used was no less complex than the model that put the earth in the center of the universe. Most church people got confused by both of them. Even I get confused by both of them, but at least I understand Fourier Transforms and why these funny models developed. (Circles within circles ... that's a spirograph ... and I can make square orbits if I wanted to and use enough circles.)

The church dismissed the notion that since the sun doesn't actually "move" in the sky but there is a passage that says at one point the sun "stood still" that the BIBLE IS IN ERROR.

It's not "ERROR" it's a point of view from some ancient guy in the middle of a damn battle.

The fact remains that the church was a major supporter of science in all its forms. Mechanical clocks were developed by monks. Monks also were the first to scientifically study heredity in plants. (Yes, monks had a lot of time on their hands.) They established the first universities. The notion that the church was anti-science is a 19th century secular fiction.

I never claimed that the church oppressed all scientific advances. All I claimed was that viceroy63 was wrong about scientists dismissing the telescope. Additionally you should know that the catholic church operated like the soviet union did. All advances were made in subjects that the church wanted/allowed to see advanced. Any proof that one of the views of the church was wrong was oppressed.

Also mechanical clocks were first developed by the chinese, not monks.

[crispybits]

The notion that the church is anti-science does have some truth, though stated this way you wouldn't know it.

The grain of truth is that once any human is willing to say "God did it", then their investigation of the world stops. Even Isaac Newton had one of these moments when he could not work out how the solar system was stable, he gave up trying to work it out and just said "God keeps it stable". Within a few short years LaPlace had figured out the maths that showed why under Newton's laws the solar system was mathematically stable and there was no need for God to do anything to keep it that way. The maths LaPlace figured out was child's play compared to some of the stuff Newton worked out (he developed a lot of the basis of modern calculus to explain some of the motions of the planets, so many-body gravitational modelling wasn't complcated in those terms) but at that moment when Newton said "God does it" he stopped looking for the actual answer.

It's similar if you look at a lot of the religious scientists from pre-enlightenment times. They will explain things by using observation and investigation and calculation, and then they will get to a point where they reach something they just can't get their head around and say "well that must be divine and eternally mysterious to us" (or "God did it").

The church did impede some forms of scientific progress during the dark ages, but the main damage isn't from one church or religious sect with secular power shutting down ideas, it's with this philosophy that as soon as we hit a brick wall we just call it God and turn away from trying to solve that problem. This is why the enlightenment is such an important time for science, beause it was a shift away from scientists getting to their limits of understanding and saying "God did it", to scientists getting to the limits of their understanding and saying "we don't know, but we're still trying to figure it out".

[universalchiro]

But with closer inspection, humans have similar strands of genetic coding to many creatures, not just the chimp and not just primates. Why?

This is so sad to read. And none of the evolutionist see the above error. For they would have said something. Such blindness to the obvious is just sad to read.

Imagine You are in a court of law trying to prove your case that man evolved from rock. The judge says, "please present your evidence". And you say, "I call your attention to the chart above, this is fact and proof of evolution". The crowd of evolutionist shout for joy and mock the creationist as idiots. Then the judge says, "who made this chart?", you reply "an evolutionist made this chart". The judge says, "This evidence is thrown out for it lacks objectivity and is purely subjective with extreme bias". An evolutionist creates a chart to support his preconceived belief and this is the so called "facts" you present? For shame, for shame.

This is the underlying problem with evolutionist. They create their own evidence to supposedly support their already preconceived belief system. This is the blind faith and dogmatic one-sided interpretation of evidence, that reveals this is a faith based religion. This is not a pursuit of truth, evolution is a hatred of anything that has to do with God.

The answer of why humans are on earth, the purpose for living, is to give glory to God for His majesty is displayed daily with His dynamic creation. Humans are riddled with sin (missing the mark of God's holy standard) and the wages of sin is death. But through the saving blood of Jesus Christ, you can be free from the bondage of sin. And have eternal life in heaven of no tears, no sorrows, no crying, filled with joy and love forever with an immortal body.

Crispybits, you have presented yourself as a teacher. There is a greater penalty of those who teach doctrine of demons. But SINCE even the rankest sinner, even the one who hates God the most, even the one filled with extreme anger towards God can be redeemed, so too can you. For Paul declared he was the chief sinner, which puts all others as less sinners, but still needing a savior. The power of God to change the heart is beyond comprehension. But there comes a point in time when God says "enough is enough, I have sent to you forth teller after forth teller, preacher after preacher and you have rejected them all. I will now turn my back on you and turn you over to a depraved mind, where I will allow demons to possess you and not let you go. Then you won't even have a functioning mind, foolishness will reign and you will never be satisfied in all the lust of life." So don't delay. Repent of your idolatry and give your life to God. You and I have both sinned, but I am free from the eternal cost of sin, because I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, but you are not free from the cost of sin, because you reject God.

Those who still have an open mind, let me know and I will show you the truth about God and lead you to freedom from anxiousness, guilt, shame, pain of sin, sorrow of broken relationships, worry of money and an eternity of suffering in Hell. And fill the empty void in your life of why you are here on earth and what is the purpose in life.

[AndyDufresne]

...see the above error. For they would have said something. Such blindness to the obvious is just sad to read.

I agree with this part of your post.


--Andy

[waauw]

I wonder how christians would react if one would get a large and visible tattoo saying "666"...

[Gillipig]

I wonder how christians would react if one would get a large and visible tattoo saying "666"...

"That guy must really like the letter six!"

[waauw]

I wonder how christians would react if one would get a large and visible tattoo saying "666"...

"That guy must really like the letter six!"

letter?

[AndyDufresne]

I wonder how christians would react if one would get a large and visible tattoo saying "666"...

"That guy must really like the letter six!"

That is a very sixy tattoo.


--Andy

[crispybits]

This is so sad to read. And none of the evolutionist see the above error. For they would have said something. Such blindness to the obvious is just sad to read.

Imagine You are in a court of law trying to prove your case that man evolved from rock. The judge says, "please present your evidence". And you say, "I call your attention to the chart above, this is fact and proof of evolution". The crowd of evolutionist shout for joy and mock the creationist as idiots. Then the judge says, "who made this chart?", you reply "an evolutionist made this chart". The judge says, "This evidence is thrown out for it lacks objectivity and is purely subjective with extreme bias". An evolutionist creates a chart to support his preconceived belief and this is the so called "facts" you present? For shame, for shame.

This is the underlying problem with evolutionist. They create their own evidence to supposedly support their already preconceived belief system. This is the blind faith and dogmatic one-sided interpretation of evidence, that reveals this is a faith based religion. This is not a pursuit of truth, evolution is a hatred of anything that has to do with God.

The answer of why humans are on earth, the purpose for living, is to give glory to God for His majesty is displayed daily with His dynamic creation. Humans are riddled with sin (missing the mark of God's holy standard) and the wages of sin is death. But through the saving blood of Jesus Christ, you can be free from the bondage of sin. And have eternal life in heaven of no tears, no sorrows, no crying, filled with joy and love forever with an immortal body.

Crispybits, you have presented yourself as a teacher. There is a greater penalty of those who teach doctrine of demons. But even the rankest sinner, even the one who hates God the most, even the one filled with extreme anger towards God can be redeemed. The power of God to change the heart is beyond comprehension. But there comes a point in time when God says "enough is enough, I have sent to you forth teller after forth teller, preacher after preacher and you have rejected them all. I will now turn my back on you and turn you over to a depraved mind, where I will allow demons to possess you and not let you go. Then you won't even have a functioning mind, foolishness will reign and you will never be satisfied in all the lust of life." So don't delay. Repent of your idolatry and give your life to God.

Those who still have an open mind, let me know and I will show you the truth about God and lead you to freedom from anxiousness, guilt, shame, pain of sin, sorrow of broken relationships, worry of money and an eternity of suffering in Hell. And fill the empty void in your life of why you are here on earth and what is the purpose in life.

Excuse me? You asked a question and I answered with what evolution actually says about the answer to that question. I never pretended that what I was writing was proof for evolution, because it isn't. What I wrote was the explanation that evolution provides for why we share traits with other animals and not just primates.

You then go on to state what our purpose in life is. Are you claiming to know the purpose of my life? Are you claiming to know the purpose of everybody's life? I don't hate God, I believe that things exist beyond the realms of our understanding and I remain open to the possiblity of God-like things, I even have my own metaphysical guesses about some of that stuff. I hate religion. I hate people talking from a position of blind faith about what my life's purpose is, or about what I should believe about the things that all of us have no real comprehension of, especially when their preaching is targetted at young minds not mature enough to critically analyse the world around them and come to their own conclusions.

I presented myself as a seeker of truth, not a dealer in it. Unlike you, I do not claim absolute authority because of anything I think I know, but I look for people to question these things in order that I can improve my own understanding. Nothing I know is set in stone, and I am open to changing my mind about everything I think. During our discussion I gave you ways to prove what I think is incorrect, I gave you ways to show me how what I am saying is wrong. The first time you came back to me with mostly questions, so I answered them. the second time you ignored what I said completely and piously determined that I would be judged more harshly by your version of God.

WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU TO DETERMINE THAT!!!! (paraphrased from Matthew 7 - maybe you need to read that chapter and think hard about it's message if you're a true christian)

Go away "Dr Lawrence", I have no more time to spend on idiots.

(PS, just to demonstrate that last big paragraph, I'm currently watching a lot of science and philosophy documentaries and reading whatever books I can get my hands on about the nature of time, there have recently been more people within those fields presenting good cases why time may not be anything like what we think it really is, and indeed may not exist outside of our concious perceptions at all - I am actively looking for things that would prove my own view of how the universe works wrong. In contrast, you are coming here, ignoring opposing views as soon as they get just a little bit uncomfortable and declaring special knowledge that over-rules all else....)

[universalchiro]

I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.

Nuclear Physicist Dr. Robert Gentry, has discovered 1,000's of Polonium radio halos in granite rock in a primordial state in 5 continents.

What does this mean? Let me lay a foundation to be better able to see the meaning.

According to Evolution theory in the beginning of the earth was in a very hot condition, and rock was in a molten state that took millions upon millions of years to cool. Now hold that thought and let's add other foundational material.

Radioactive elements are unstable and they want to lose electrons to become more stable, the first stable non-radioactive element is lead (Pb). When radioactive elements in rock lose an electron in this endeavor to be stable, they will leave a remnant halo of this lost alpha/beta particle and this lost radio active electron is fleeting, meaning Polonium 218 radioactive isotope only last a seconds to a few minutes before become something else. And yet these Polonium halos have left their identifying mark in granite.

The fleeting existence of radioactive isotopes, is like the effervescent bubbles of Alka Seltzer in water. The decay rate of Polonium is very short.

As Polonium 218 loses electrons in the liquid granite, they would leave a microscopic 3 dimensional sphere that appears on 2 dimensional slide as a ring. So one ring for Po218, one ring for Po214 and one ring for Po210 . Therefore, three distinctive rings.

When the granite rock was formed, Polonium was there and somehow the element was captured by the rock. But since Polonium is so fleeting in existence and evolutionary theory is that rock cooled over millions of years, then all the Polonium would have decayed to another element and couldn't be captured in granite.

It's liken to the Alka Seltzer in water. The Alka Seltzer tablet is the Polonium. And the water is like the Molten granite. To show someone 10,000 years in the future the bubbling effect (the bubbles are like the radiation emitted by the Polonium), one has to freeze the water to capture the bubbles. One couldn't slowly cool the water over days. It would have to be instantly cooled in seconds to capture the fleeting bubbles. So too with the granite rock. The granite rock had to be instantly cooled to capture the Polonium halos imprinted in the granite rock.

To all those willing to listen, this proves that the earth's granite rock hardened (formed) almost instantly to capture the fleeting Polonium halos. Proof positive that granite rock didn't cool over millions to billions of years.

This substantiates the Genesis account of creation that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in 6 days and rested the 7th day.

http://vimeo.com/34916219
Research performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Discoveries published in leading journals: "Science", "Nature","Geophysical Research Letters", "Earth & Planetary Science Letters", "Physical review Letter", "Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science". Papers appearing in these journals are subject to peer review.

Geologist use constant decay rates to determine the age of earth. They will study a rock and determine how much of Uranium 238 has turned into Pb210 (lead), then working backwards with a constant rate of decay, geologist can determine the rocks starting point. The instrument used is an ion probe mass spectrometer. This measure the ratio of Ur to Pb. Utilizing the constant rate of decay, geologist determine rock to be billion year old. All dating methods work on the same theory. Using today's rate of decay as a constant to determine when the starting point is. This involves an assumption: That the rate of decay has always been constant.

The distant past rates of decay is not measurable and has not been observed. Two very important requirements of the scientific method of elevating a hypothesis to a theory.

Most radio halos demonstrate concentric rings of each alpha and beta particle released, they look like archery targets on a 2-dimensional image. So from Uranium 238 to Pb 210, there would be 8 concentric rings as Uranium 238 decayed to Lead. But what Dr. Robert Gentry discovered is Polonium rings with no parent Uranium ring that produced them, no descending chain of decay, just a starting point of Polonium. This just shouldn't happen.

Polonium is suppose to exist in nature as the last of descendant decay chain from Uranium before it decays into lead. This is primordial Polonium. No Uranium parent. The ion microprobe of the magnetic mass spectrometer determined that Polonium 218 existed in a Primordial state. That is to say an instant creative condition, rather than a natural decay condition from Uranium238.

For those willing to listen, this is unequivocal evidence that the Bible's creation account is truth and God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested the 7th day.

[AndyDufresne]

one has to freeze the water to capture the bubbles. One couldn't slowly cool the water over days. It would have to be instantly cooled in seconds to capture the fleeting bubbles. So too with the granite rock. The granite rock had to be instantly cooled to capture the Polonium halos imprinted in the granite rock.

Water bubbles can be captured by fracturing rock that traps water in tiny pockets, no?


--Andy