Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Sava]

ckweb... does God talk to you? Does he tell you to kill abortion doctors?

Anyone who says that they have experienced God is no different from the Islamic fundies that crashed the planes into the WTC in the name of Allah.

Religion is a social control. CkWeb, go to college and take some religion courses so you can study religion as a human phenomenon. Religion is a symptom of the human condition.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Years" are also relative, given all the KNOWN changes in calendars.
With that, I leave thread again.

Right, because the world was created in 6 days about 4000 years ago. And neandrathals never existed because evolution is false.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by loinburger
Archeologists/anthropologists have discovered that many tribes of Neanderthals buried their dead, a practice performed almost exclusively for religious purposes.

They had a religous adversion to Saber Tooth tigers,
Hyenas and the like developing a taste for human flesh.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ozz
They had a religous adversion to Saber Tooth tigers,
Hyenas and the like developing a taste for human flesh.

Many primitive societies consumed their dead. Why waste food, unless there's a religious taboo against it?

There's also a big difference between burying a body under rocks so that it won't become carrion, and burying a body accompanied by tools and weapons and whatnot (which would serve no conceivable practical purpose).

[Lemmy]

Lemmy, that's not how evolution is said to work.

evolution works with randomized genetic modification during reproduction. Most of these modifications are bad modification that result in degeneration. That's the point where natural selection pops in, since natural selection takes away the wrong modifications so only the good new will survive.

compared to my monkey example, a monkey types:
asdfk asdf;;lk jasfd lkj afsdl;kj the alkj dk cat asdljdsafj is skf fdkdsa lovely.

natural selection removes a whole bunch of errors, and then "The cat is lovely" stays.

the odds that a monkey will write a good book that way are higher than that evolution will result in the current life on the planet earth.

But, according to the scientists, that's no problem, since there are more changes than odds, because of the billions of planets, is the explanations of the scientists.

this is not my personal opinion, it's just the plain way evolution is said to work.

Now back to the question: do you see a monkey see a book like shakespear with human control like that, if you give it X time?
-------------------

*if* you still stick to your form of evolution,
than it still does not work.

Say you have monkeys with inteligence 1 up to 10.
The avg would be 5.5, right?
Natural selection will remove the 1-4 monkeys, so only 6-10 are left over. Now the avg will be 8. If you continue this way, in the end, there will be only monkeys with level 10.

What monkeys need to evolve into man is that their inteligence should raise, from 10 to 10.000. New gens much appear or the old gens much be modificated. Then we get back to the first part of this message.

The question stays the same, will monkeys with human supervision ever write a book of shakespear?

CyberShy

ah yes, mutation, that's what i missed..
Using your example, you got a monkeys with intelligence 1-10, avg 5.5, and only the smartest can survive, because they are firstly smart enough to find food, anbd also smarter then other monkey and get it before them.
Now without genetic mutation, the highest attainable intelligence would be 10, and let's assume humans are at 13, (i think the difference is in fact much smaller)
Now with each generation, there is a chance of a genetic mutation, making a monkey smarter then any monkey before, say 10.5, and he will almost certainly survive, being the smartest, his children will inherit some of his intelligence, it may not be 10.5, maybe it's 9, or even 4 one time, the dumb monkey will die anyway, and again the smartest survive, allowing perhaps another genetic mutation making it smarter again, do this a couple of thousands/millions times, and it's quite possible that monkeys reach an avg intelligence of 13.

And yes, if the human race survives, then i think monkeys will even write books without human supervision, and maybe even in their own language (which they developed during their evolution).
And they will know what they're writing and why they're writing like any (ok, most) human writers today.

I know the odds are small, but they don't need to be big if you accept that the world is 4-5 billion years old, and that only humans (or any ape species), of all the species that ever lived, got so intelligent. (and no, even though only we made it, i still don't think we had a helping hand)

edit: just remembered that prophecy thing...too late and tired now, maybe tommorow.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Sava
Right, because the world was created in 6 days about 4000 years ago. And neandrathals never existed because evolution is false.

It's not that simple. The flood messes up the techniques (or rather the assumptions behind them) used to find out how old things are. Evolutionists do not believe the flood happened.

And you have not heard of the gap-theory obviously.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Evolutionists do not believe the flood happened.

Mostly because there's no evidence for it. A massive flood might screw up a lot evidence deposited prior to the flood, but such a flood would itself leave evidence of its occurrence.

For example, if every plant and animal on the planet were wiped out except for those on the Ark, then one would expect that the world's fauna and flora wouldn't be very diverse. Instead, there is an abundance of diversity, something that wouldn't be conceivable if every plant and animal species originated from Turkey (or wherever the Ark landed) a mere two thousand years ago. Why are there duck-billed platypi in Australia and nowhere else? How did they get to Australia from Turkey in such a short time? Why aren't there even any remains of duck-billed platypi in any region besides Australia? This same problem presents itself with thousands, millions, even billions and trillions of plant and animal species. Not very many life forms can survive for very long in Turkey, and there's no way for life forms to travel from Turkey (in 2,000 BC) quickly enough to survive. How did cacti get to the American Southwest? How did penguins get to Antarctica? How did polar bears get to Canada? Etc.

The problem presents itself with humans as well. How did humans disperse from Turkey to the four corners of the world in such a short period of time? Why is there such diversity in humans if they are all descended from Noah and his family?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


That thread died because you had long left the initial reason for your starting it which was dubious at best. That is as I recall you were upset with me for using Fundamentalist ideas against Fundamentalist and seemed to feel that I was somehow obligated to use YOUR concepts of the Bible in a discusion with them but then you complained when I used your concepts in the discussion with you.

As a consequence there was nothing left to comment on without going over all the questionable remarks you made one by one and most of that was stuff I had little interest in. I did ask you to get to the point and you started hemming and hawing about definitions so it looked to me like you were going to drag things out rather get on with it.

An interesting, if not lopsided, interpretation . . .

There is no such thing as othodox (lower case as opposed to the Orthodox Churches) Christianity, except maybe in comparison to the fringe groups like the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. There are far too many that disagree with your ideas on what constitutes orthodox especialy in the US where Fundamentalism is a major force.

Actually orthodox churches do exist and they agree on far more than you realize but I suppose I should defer to your authority as an insider . . . oh wait, that's right you aren't a Christian.

Well it may be beyond your grasp but morals are not beyond mine. Holiness is another matter as that can't exist without a god and after all that is what is open to question on this thread.

I'm glad you're so perfect. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Obviously that only pertains to the Old Testament. It wasn't assembled as a cohesive whole till after the Diaspora in any case but at least most of it appears to have written initially long before that. It might be that at least some of the individual parts were not in their present form till after the end of the Babylonian captivity.

Obviously.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Yes, I should have addressed that.

The word I used was "much", not "most". Of course, "much" is a subjective term, but the recent stuff includes the Book of Daniel, often cited as "prophecy" of events that took place half a millennium earlier.

Also, a lot of the older stuff has been rewritten since. Particularly the stuff written prior to the Babylonian captivity (700 BC or thereabouts) when the Jews were still polytheistic. People who describe Judaism as an "ancient" religion often don't appreciate that Judaism as we know it today isn't much older than Christianity, even though parts of it are much older.

I suppose "much" is a subjective term but when maybe a handful out of 39 books could have been written around 200 B.C.E., I don't think "much" really qualifies.

About Jewish polytheism . . . I think you have to distinguish between orthodox and popular religion. I would argue that it is fair to say that Israelite orthodoxy was monotheistic, or at least henotheistic, since its virtual inception. At the same time, popular religion always has a tendency to be syncretistic and therefore, there is little doubt that that large portions of Israelite society would have worshipped other gods in addition to their God. For instance, there is an archaelogical find that bears the inscription, "Y*** and his consort, Asherah."

I would agree that Judaism as it is today, which in many respects defined itself in response to Christianity, represents the emergence of a certain strand of the ancient religion. So, it could be argued that Judaism is as recent as Christianity. But, that is like saying the RCC only arose at the Council of Trent in response to Protestantism. While it may contain a kernel of truth, it is somewhat unfair to the historic traditions on which the emerging tradition stands.

Anyways, this is off-topic.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

And the Bible also allows us to date "the very beginning" to 4000 BC or thereabouts (by counting the years in the genealogies). As humanity is a lot older than that (and there is evidence of religious activity before that), it's reasonable to assume that religions which predate the Jewish date for the creation of the Universe are older than Judaism.

It is wrong to develop a chronology from biblical genealogies. This is what led to our screwed up calendar in the first place. The most genealogies can do with respect to dating is provide very, very general guidelines and only then in cases where one of the names in the genealogy can be dated with(in) an extra-biblical event/time/reference.

Even so, otherwise, I take your side against CyberShy on this one, although I hate doing so given how much you guys are beating up on him with dubious proofs (at least as it pertains to your biblical interpretation and knowledge). The religion known as Judaism is predated by many other religions; this is simple fact. But, that being said, this obviously does not invalidate the Judeo-Christian God or mean that that God wasn't active or worshipped in some form or another prior to the emergence of the religious institutions that arose around it.

BTW, those links you threw out, especially your own thread, are laughable. A bunch of hacks trying their hand at biblical interpretation . . . it's like Fundamentalist hacks who try their hand at Evolutionary Biology/"Creation Science." The holes are too numerous to waste time debunking.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
ckweb... does God talk to you? Does he tell you to kill abortion doctors?

Anyone who says that they have experienced God is no different from the Islamic fundies that crashed the planes into the WTC in the name of Allah.

That's a pretty inflammatory, narrow, and xenophobic view . . . but to each their own, I guess.

Religion is a social control. CkWeb, go to college and take some religion courses so you can study religion as a human phenomenon. Religion is a symptom of the human condition.

Oh, if you only knew, . . .

[Robert]

ckweb

Even so, otherwise, I take your side against CyberShy on this one, although I hate doing so given how much you guys are beating up on him with dubious proofs (at least as it pertains to your biblical interpretation and knowledge). The religion known as Judaism is predated by many other religions

You don't side against me in this case. I said about the same thing. (organized judaistic religion only started around the days of Jacob / the beginning of Israel)

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Lars-E

It's not that simple. The flood messes up the techniques (or rather the assumptions behind them) used to find out how old things are. Evolutionists do not believe the flood happened.

This would only apply to carbon-dating, which makes assumptions about the rate of production of carbon-14. Carbon dating is only used for relatively recent dates (no more than 50,000 years ago or thereabouts) due to its relatively short half-life. There is no way that the Flood could mess up other forms of radiometric dating, nor could it affect astronomical evidence, or miraculously sort millions of fossils into the precise sequence required by evolution.

There was no Flood. This is certain. NOBODY believes the Flood happened, except religious fundamentalists. It isn't an "evolutionist" thing.

[TheStinger]

Simple question:

If all the H20 on earth was turned into liquid form would it cover all the land.

Answer: NO

Conclusion: Biblical flood not possible

[Jack the Bodiless]

And my thread entitled "...at the Church of the Nativity, the Birthplace of Jesus..." discusses just how worthless the "prophecy" of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is.

BTW, those links you threw out, especially your own thread, are laughable. A bunch of hacks trying their hand at biblical interpretation . . . it's like Fundamentalist hacks who try their hand at Evolutionary Biology/"Creation Science." The holes are too numerous to waste time debunking.

The guy who pointed out the Bethlehem problem to me has a theology degree and about twenty years experience as an ordained Church of Christ minister. Not exactly a "hack".

Though what matters are the arguments, not who is making them. You think Micah was prophesying Jesus? You think there really was a Star of Bethlehem, or a massacre of children somehow overlooked by historians?