Need a quick God related question answered

[shernajwine]

This claim is ignorant in itself because every fossil is a transitonal form

typical evolutionist claim when trying to get out of the fact that there is no fossil that represents a "missing link" to conclude with absolute proof of the theory of macro.

Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. Increased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp (OH NO a creation website!) 

But this is such a long shot that it's not worth wasting my time to disprove.

I think it's the most important thing a person could do in their life. Finding evidence for God. Definitely not a waste of time in my opinion.

I would just like undeniable proof.

You will find plenty of evidence, not 100% proof. And I would mention again that evolutionist theory of origins is not scientific fact. If it's not fact, that means it does not have PROOF to support it. Therefore it is easily deniable and yet you still believe it.

Well you told the story pretty quick and left out a lot.

I realize that, as obviously it was to be taken as seriously as the theory that produced the idea of soup in the first place.

Ooooooooh yes, it's much more plausible then a supernatural means of creating life. If I were rolling my eyes any higher they would roll right out of my head. It literally gives me brain cramps to try and understand (after looking at these ridiculous evolutionist claims) HOW ANYBODY can believe it.

But I did find an interesting article from a psychologist and former atheist who put things in good perspective. He did a marvelous job of describing a person's psychological barriers in believing in God. It is not so much intellectual as it is emotional. So, I actually don't have a good reason to be so frustrated since it's not that you are an intelligent person believing in completely unintelligent things but that you are an intelligent person with an emotional issue preventing you from seeing logic.

[Falconer02]

typical evolutionist claim when trying to get out of the fact that there is no fossil that represents a "missing link" to conclude with absolute proof of the theory of macro

You just fell for the trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
A popular term used to designate transitional forms is "missing links". The term tends to be used in the popular media, but is avoided in the scientific press as it relates to the links in the great chain of being, a pre-evolutionary concept now abandoned. In reality, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to knowledge of evolutionary transitions,[3][8] making many of the "missing links" missing no more
Examples of transitional fossils-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I'd like to continue arguing, but the fact that you used, imo, the worst creationist site on the web that leaves out a lot of information on subjects as a source for argument is...well...I'm not certain I can argue anything else with you since your sources are now no doubt rock-solidly slanted despite you saying otherwise. It is obvious through your quoting that you are incapable of getting the examples or systems down correctly. You act as if you've seen both sides of the spectrum in full, but considering what you've posted, this does not seem to be the truth since you're cherry-picking and you allow for magical thinking-- the irrational and illogical. Anything natural (basic fact or basic theory) is more plausable than the supernatural because there is no proof of the supernatural unless you can show us otherwise. This is the difference between my belief in evolution and your faith in creationism. Considering you're attempting to make this personal through your last few sentences by saying my non-belief in your defined and personalized god is strictly emotional, I think we're done here.

[shernajwine]

No matter WHAT I say, if I quote anything that is from a creationist, I am wrong merely based on that. If say I believe in God I am automatically considered delusional by your definition! You saying I referred to the worst creation website out there, is based on an opinion stemming from unbelief so how is it credible??

Get what I am saying to you, where are the fossils that prove, for example, man evolved from apes?? There are transitional fossils that show variations within species this DOESN'T prove macroevolution! A dog that lived 200 years ago is still a dog, no matter what variations have changed within the species of dog or the different kinds that come about through breeding. Still a dog. The first ever car built, is still today a car. No matter how many makes and models or additions or subtractions to the design it is a car. Not a house.

saying my non-belief in your defined and personalized god is strictly emotional, I think we're done here.

But I can be told that my belief in God is a psychological need to cope with the fear of death? That belief in God is a childish fantasy that I cling to like a security blanket? And I am told this by people that don't know me and yet claim to have such confidence in explaining my psyche? It got personal long before I made that statement.

[shernajwine]

Dr. David Berlinski a NON creationist or fundamentalist discusses flaws in evolution theory.
In this particular clip he discusses transitional forms and the reason it is questionable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrT4eJBH5EE&feature=related

[sigmapi1501]

So the rock.... yea he can lift it?.....

[jcribb16]

So the rock.... yea he can lift it?.....

So from all this....

I learned That God Can create a big rock (already conceded that he could)
And that God could lift any rock that exists (kinda assumed that)

But never if he could do both.  Learned a lot about monkeys. Got to read a lot of Bible quotes. Just never a reasonable answer to the questions.

Since God is truly omnipotent, then that means He is all-powerful and can do anything. You could say that means He can lift any size boulder He chooses to make. Or, you can say that He can make one so big so that He knows He can't lift it. 
(Omnipotent - unlimited power);

[Falconer02]

No matter WHAT I say, if I quote anything that is from a creationist, I am wrong merely based on that. If say I believe in God I am automatically considered delusional by your definition! You saying I referred to the worst creation website out there, is based on an opinion stemming from unbelief so how is it credible??

By saying you believe in the possibility of a god, it does not automatically make you delusional because it has simply not been proven. It is a possiblity. You admit that you could be wrong. It is an open statement and not defined. If you say you believe in a personalized and defined god from ancient histories and that all evidence points to it, yeah. That sounds delusional because if you discredit, say, the existence of Zues but say your god does exist, yes. That's delusional. Granted it's still a possibility that you're right, but the probability of you being right weighed against all other gods is ludicrously astronomical. Reread my 'man in Peru' example to make more sense of this.

You saying I referred to the worst creation website out there, is based on an opinion stemming from unbelief so how is it credible??

Well I'd get into it but it's a humongous story branching from politics that happened a year ago. Basically I've been in arguments with people who use this as a source outside of this forum. I've read many articles on it before on different subjects and much of the information tends to be just blatantly wrong or leaves a lot out to slant the argument in favor of christianity. It's a die-hard young-earth crazy creationist site. From my past experiences with it, I don't accept it as a reliable source. Neither do many non-christians. It's like the fox news of christian websites.

Get what I am saying to you, where are the fossils that prove, for example, man evolved from apes?? There are transitional fossils that show variations within species this DOESN'T prove macroevolution! A dog that lived 200 years ago is still a dog, no matter what variations have changed within the species of dog or the different kinds that come about through breeding. Still a dog. The first ever car built, is still today a car. No matter how many makes and models or additions or subtractions to the design it is a car. Not a house.

So you're saying organisms should retain characteristics or remnants of characteristics of the organisms they originally came from? Grasping further into your example, there's so many variations of transportation today that I'd say the car example hurts your argument here because all of those evolved from one design and became more complex. To refute the claims, you would have to prove to me that humans are simply humans and have no various genetic relations to other species that could be traced back to a possible ancestral life form. Why do humans have the genes for making a fully functiona tail? Sharp canine teeth? Extra nipples? Why are these same traits seen in other primates? Why do chickens have genes for teeth? Why do birds and dolphins have very similar skeletal arm structure to humans and yet some digits serve no purpose? Why do whales have genes for making legs? Extra toes on horses? etc. etc. They are seen all over nature. What is up with all the oddities and imperfections? If god created everything in present form, why do we/they have these? This falls back to what I remember Queen discussing with you-- Occam's Razor. It's reasonable to conclude that, unless god was just lazy and half-assed it, we may have come from an ancestral lifeform.

As far as finding fossils showing man evolved from early primates- as far as I know there is no precise/easily directed proof yet. But based on the visual evidence of what we do have (our relations to apes as well as our fossil record), it is reasonable to assume that this is true. If anyone can add to this if I missed something, please do.

But I can be told that my belief in God is a psychological need to cope with the fear of death? That belief in God is a childish fantasy that I cling to like a security blanket? And I am told this by people that don't know me and yet claim to have such confidence in explaining my psyche?

Did I ever say this? If so, I don't remember. But if I do remember your life story that you had posted a while back, it is of  'born-again' nature which is kind of a default with the christians on this forum.

[tantricia44]

What a stupid question, why would god need to waste his/her time building a boulder so big he won't be able to lift it. Any way, even if he/she did, he/she would get someone else to do the lifting. That's what god does, delegate the *bleep* work & then sit back on his/her *bleep*    as he/she take the credit for it. 

[jordandog]

  What if God just creates a boulder so big he couldn't lift it...and then just let it drop from Heaven?  Problem solved.

I believe that would be called a mountain.....

[Falconer02]

When you are burning in hell....this is why!

Tant, don't take offense to this. She's an uneducated schizo-troll or something like that. Obviously off her meds. Just ignore her.

Sherna-- I'm going on vacation this week so I may be gone till sunday. After today I may not respond so unless anyone else wants to take over the argument, I'll be MIA. Have a good week!

[amyrouse]

  What if God just creates a boulder so big he couldn't lift it...and then just let it drop from Heaven?  Problem solved.

I believe that would be called a mountain.....

I was thinking more along the lines of a meteorite...which means g-d killed the dinosaurs.

[liljp617]

And you said microevolution is fact so you must accept macroevolution as fact or your terminology is shot.

I stated to liljp before about my understanding of the difference (and there is a difference) and he continually tried to redefine it, in the pattern of so many other evolutionists.

This is a definition from an evolution website.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:


It is essentially correct, however we have undeniable irrefutable proof for microevolution. Macroevolution requires the proof of transitional fossils, there is none. There is no proof of one species evolving over time into a complete different species. So sorry. And if you want to list all your nonsense evidence like archeopteryx and "Lucy" and fruit flies and moths.....well, don't waste your time because I have read all about them and they fall very short of proving anything on a large scale of evolution, such as required for macroevolution. And it comes back to origins, macroevolution is what is used to say we all descended from a common ancestor.....there is NO proof of that. So if you want to continue in ignorance, that is your problem. Hmmmm, you believe in something for which there is no proof (FAITH).

I'm not going to do this whole thing again, I will simply state, very clearly in bold:  We have numerous modern, observed examples of speciation -- speciation IS macroevolution.

I did not redefine the word, I defined it the same as the definition you just quoted and how the words, although rarely used, are defined in the field of evolutionary biology -- macroevolution is microevolution on a longer time scale, there is no difference in how the two mechanisms occur.  They are the same process, merely on different time scales.  It's a simple detail to comprehend.

Just remember who puts faith in man-made fairy-tale stories and their characters and who does not.

Once upon a time nothing made something and that something exploded to create matter in the nothing (now referred to as the universe). Then it rained and rained on one the rocks until it made a warm soup. One glorious moment lightening flashed across that soup and a tiny little cell was formed. Fred (that's the cell's name now), he was so excited to be alive that he turned into fish! He swam around for soooo many years until finally he decided he wanted to go on land. So he grew some legs! Oh Fred was so proud of himself for growing legs and he was ecstatic to crawl on the land. One day Fred decided he was lonely and needed a partner so he magically split himself in half! He loved Freda (the other half that magically had the capability to reproduce) so much. They lived happily ever after creating children who constantly mutated over the years to produce all the animals and people we see today!

No that doesn't sound like a fairy tale at all! You were right, you are definitely not delusional for believing that story  

Once upon a time, you clearly really don't know a thing about what the theories propose or address.  The Big Bang Theory proposes nothing of the sort that you just described.  The Theory of Evolution proposes nothing about the origin of life.  Open a physics and biology book in the future.

[shernajwine]

When you are burning in hell....this is why!

Tant, don't take offense to this. She's an uneducated schizo-troll or something like that. Obviously off her meds. Just ignore her.

Sherna-- I'm going on vacation this week so I may be gone till sunday. After today I may not respond so unless anyone else wants to take over the argument, I'll be MIA. Have a good week!

Lol.
I feel I have exhausted the argument on my end for the moment. But enjoy your vacation! 

[tantricia44]

Please, make use of that  ROCK & BASH it on your HEAD!!!! I have nothing against religion, I just want to save the human race!!!!! *(from STUPIDITY) HAVE A NICE DAY

[tantricia44]

  I agree. Sometimes the "bee stirrers" intent backfires when people can actually disprove and give serious, thought-provoking answers.

And I'd LOVE to see one.   ONE. Just ONE. Please. Please. Some God fearing Christian person post ONE thing that isn't the dumbest thing I have ever heard.   ONCE.  Do it ONCE. 

Quoting the Bible doesn't count because the book was written by flawed men.  It is NOT the word of God.  And don't any one of you arrogant mother f*&$ers dare tell me "I'll pray for you"  because that is just passive-aggressive BS at it's best. 

And to rip off my favorite comic, I am so confident that No God exist... if he DOES, then may he strike... everyone reading this post dead right now.

Good night. Top that Jesus.

The FORCE IS WITH YOU BROTHER!!!!