# Bill Nye to debate creationist



## Dr. Strangelove (Feb 3, 2014)

Woot!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/03/creation-museum-debate-ham-nye/5177257/

Give 'em heck, Bill!


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 3, 2014)

Why does he have to look like a loony tune?  Like the dude from Ancient Aliens.  Don't they realize credibility is directly related to appearance??


----------



## panfried0419 (Feb 3, 2014)

He needs to argue with a theistic evolutionist like myself.


----------



## Four (Feb 4, 2014)

panfried0419 said:


> He needs to argue with a theistic evolutionist like myself.



The Theistic Evolutionist aren't apart of the problem as seen by scientists... People like bill nye, and neal degrass tyson, etc are trying to combat ideas like the young earth.

Theistic Evolutionists just put "God" prior to the beginning of evolution, and for the most part agree with the science.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 4, 2014)

Four said:


> The Theistic Evolutionist aren't apart of the problem as seen by scientists... People like bill nye, and neal degrass tyson, etc are trying to combat ideas like the young earth.
> 
> Theistic Evolutionists just put "God" prior to the beginning of evolution, and for the most part agree with the science.





> Theistic Evolutionist aren't apart of the problem as seen by scientists..


Maybe not by scientists but these folks seem a little perturbed -


> Theistic evolution is a contradictory system of belief where one attempts to believe in God and at the same time attempts to believe in atheistic evolution.  This is a vain attempt to try to straddle the fence.  Theistic evolution is an attempt to have the long ages necessary to accommodate atheistic evolution to take place while at the same time allowing God to "mysteriously" extend His creation over 4.6 billion years.  God told Moses in Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them."  The creation took place in six literal days because God said so.  Theistic evolution is a compromise of God’s word and basically infers that God lied about what He claimed to have done.


http://www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/new_page_26.htm


----------



## Four (Feb 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe not by scientists but these folks seem a little perturbed -
> 
> http://www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/new_page_26.htm



Poor guys, don't get along with atheists, or Young earther's


The strict / literal interpreters are always going to be at odds with those that take more of a vague/metaphorical interpritation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 4, 2014)

Atheist evolution, is that like the atheist explanation of a rainbow or the atheist explanation that we don't actually love people with our heart? The atheist explanation that the earth is round?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 4, 2014)

Psalm 139:14
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous--how well I know it.

Does the atheist explanation of DNA go against God making me complex by his own workmanship? 
I could list a couple 100 more atheist explanations but, I've made my point, and back to the OP.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 4, 2014)

What is athiesm really? I mean, I understand agnostics because they say there may be a god, but there isnt enough evidence either way fir them to believe. But an athiest seems to say there is absolutley no god. It that correct. Serious question.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 5, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Atheist evolution, is that like the atheist explanation of a rainbow or the atheist explanation that we don't actually love people with our heart? The atheist explanation that the earth is round?


Since there is no such thing as "atheist evolution" it is used to scare you or shame you so that you don't even let yourself think about evolution. Basically its used to control.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 5, 2014)

Yes, an athiest would say there is no god.

An athiest would say that there is no proof of god.

A believer would say there is plenty of proof in god and that proof is the bible.

An athiest would say that the bible is too full of general weirdness to be believed as a non-fiction book and that a lot of it is a bit hard to be taken seriously. An athiest might post questions about the bible on a forum such as this and never get any good answers, other than references back to the book that is of questionable integrity to begin with.

A believer would say, "yeah, but we have the bible. And it is the word of god". But some other believers would say that "it isn't meant to be literal". But then some other believers would say "of course it is, god says so, just read the book". But other believers would say, "no - your Jesus isn't god - or even the son of god - our god is the real god and our sacred book proves it".


----------



## Four (Feb 5, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Psalm 139:14
> Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous--how well I know it.
> 
> Does the atheist explanation of DNA go against God making me complex by his own workmanship?
> I could list a couple 100 more atheist explanations but, I've made my point, and back to the OP.



I genuinely don't get what the point you were trying to make is, especially with the whole atheist evolution bit.


----------



## Four (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> What is athiesm really? I mean, I understand agnostics because they say there may be a god, but there isnt enough evidence either way fir them to believe. But an athiest seems to say there is absolutley no god. It that correct. Serious question.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 5, 2014)

Did anybody watch the debate?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 5, 2014)

Four said:


> I genuinely don't get what the point you were trying to make is, especially with the whole atheist evolution bit.



It was a bit off topic but started with Panfried's suggestion to debate with a theistic evolutionist.

Walt summed up my feelings with:
Since there is no such thing as "atheist evolution" it is used to scare you or shame you so that you don't even let yourself think about evolution. Basically its used to control. 

Basically most Christians are associating evolution as being an atheist only belief. That isn't true and I would be fine with that if they didn't use science to explain God making my body wonderfully complex or explaining a rainbow with science. What's the difference? Either God uses science or he doesn't.


----------



## Four (Feb 5, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It was a bit off topic but started with Panfried's suggestion to debate with a theistic evolutionist.
> 
> Walt summed up my feelings with:
> Since there is no such thing as "atheist evolution" it is used to scare you or shame you so that you don't even let yourself think about evolution. Basically its used to control.
> ...



Ahh that is a problem  many people wont even look into it because they think evolution is equivalent to atheism, like you said. Whereas, really the theory doesn't make any claims to a god or lack there of.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Did anybody watch the debate?



yikes it's long... let's see how much I can get through.


----------



## panfried0419 (Feb 5, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It was a bit off topic but started with Panfried's suggestion to debate with a theistic evolutionist.
> 
> Walt summed up my feelings with:
> Since there is no such thing as "atheist evolution" it is used to scare you or shame you so that you don't even let yourself think about evolution. Basically its used to control.
> ...



Sorry


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 5, 2014)

I see a big issue with Ken's argument.  He included hyenas with dogs... Hyenas aren't dogs. They are rodents more like weasels. His credibility is gone...

Jk... still watching... I actually agree with a lot of what Ken is saying about observational science.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 5, 2014)

Four said:


> Ahh that is a problem  many people wont even look into it because they think evolution is equivalent to atheism, like you said. Whereas, really the theory doesn't make any claims to a god or lack there of.





> Whereas, really the theory doesn't make any claims to a god or lack there of.


BINGO!
That is something that many Christians can not or will not understand. That's why this type of ridiculous phrase exists - 
"atheist evolution"


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Did anybody watch the debate?




I watched some of it. Liked it. Both sides points of view were well explained. Nye's kept pushing the idea that school children that were not thought about the scientific method and science in general ( evolution) were being short changed and so was the US. I liked his well made and simple explanation of how scientists are able to predict outcomes, events, etc...


----------



## 660griz (Feb 5, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Yes, an athiest would say there is no god.
> 
> An athiest would say that there is no proof of god.
> 
> ...



Pretty much sums it up. 

Now, what do yall want to do?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 5, 2014)

panfried0419 said:


> Sorry



It wasn't a problem, I just felt like exploring the different aspect of the Christian's belief in evolution. It did fit into the discussion to a certain extent. It showed a different belief from the two being debated.
I, others, and probably you, don't see evolution as  "atheist evolution."


----------



## Denton (Feb 5, 2014)

Here is a link to the recorded video if anyone wants to watch it. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...es_n_4717896.html?c&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

I thought Nye did a fantastic job.  Ham also did well but just doesn't make sense.  His "Observable Science vs. Historical Science" at first sounds like a real distinction, and I almost fell for it, but it really is just crap.  Otherwise like Nye said, Crime Scene Investigation  would not exist or be trusted to put away bad guys.  

When Ham stated that nothing would dissuade him from his theory while Nye only wanted evidence otherwise that was a telling moment.  

Likewise, when Ham made the distinction between literal readings of the bible and poetic sections, while I agree with him that that is the only logical way to read the Bible, it really sank him in this context because his point was the literal interpretation of Genesis over evolution.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 5, 2014)

I don't really like Bill's presentation, but park of it I think puts Ken and Young Earth to rest. The trees argument. There are live trees that we date to be thousands of years old... We use observational science to date them by how quickly the grown... but obviously we aren't observing the entire life of those trees... But we can see the trees at different points of their life and their grown rate. Those trees can't grown under water, but I guess I am just trusting that....


----------



## Denton (Feb 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Pretty much sums it up.
> 
> Now, what do yall want to do?



Dang it, Ya'll just broke the forum.  

All we have left is fishing and hunting now.  Way to go guys.


----------



## Denton (Feb 5, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't really like Bill's presentation, but park of it I think puts Ken and Young Earth to rest. The trees argument. There are live trees that we date to be thousands of years old... We use observational science to date them by how quickly the grown... but obviously we aren't observing the entire life of those trees... But we can see the trees at different points of their life and their grown rate. Those trees can't grown under water, but I guess I am just trusting that....



we can test that by putting other trees of the same species under water.  Short story short, they die.  

What did you not like about his presentation?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 5, 2014)

He just didn't seem to be as organized as Ken. I am on his side, just didn't like his presentation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 5, 2014)

I couldn't get past the first 5 minutes. I had to turn it off when the claim was made that teaching evolution to kids is imposing the religion of atheism on them. All I needed to hear to know what the intelligence/honesty level was going to be.
Its interesting that we were talking about this very same nonsense above before I even saw the video.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 5, 2014)

Ken doesn't believe in some of the historical science because we have to assume too much about it.. because we weren't there to see it... but then he refers to the bible being documentation of where consciousness came from... Relying on a book that says it was poofed, while dismissing explanations for other things calling it historical science when the concepts used can be demonstrated. 


What would change your mind - Ken is STUMPED... because he doesn't want to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. 

Like I said, I feel like Ken started out with a decent apologetic approach... but by the end, he reverts to the norm...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Feb 5, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ken doesn't believe in some of the historical science because we have to assume too much about it.. because we weren't there to see it... but then he refers to the bible being documentation of where consciousness came from... Relying on a book that says it was poofed, while dismissing explanations for other things calling it historical science when the concepts used can be demonstrated.
> 
> 
> What would change your mind - Ken is STUMPED... because he doesn't want to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
> ...



Can anyone tell me the odds of some new revelation about a book/belief system that's over 2000 years old coming out in that debate? 

Predictability is predictable.


----------



## Four (Feb 5, 2014)

Denton said:


> When Ham stated that nothing would dissuade him from his theory while Nye only wanted evidence otherwise that was a telling moment.



That was what killed it for me as well. It's admitting that all the evidence he is putting forward isn't even the reason for what he believes...


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 5, 2014)

Im an old earth Christian and for the first time ever I find myself agreeing with Pat Robertson.....but I aint sending him a pledge.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pat-robe...nsense-to-think-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/


----------



## TTom (Feb 5, 2014)

Best argument of the night was when Nye pointed out that if the "Kind" argument was true we would have had to have some 35 new species every day since the flood to arrive at the current number of species on earth. 

We have a couple hundred years where this has not been observed to be happening, ergo the "Kind hypothesis" is flawed.


----------



## Four (Feb 6, 2014)

This post debate interview was just awkward.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...ye-embarrasses-ham-even-cnn-following-debate/


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2014)

I want to hear Ken's opinion of how salt water and fresh water fish, fish that can not survive in the other environment, how do have them now... Evolution would be working pretty fast in this case... Unless  Noah had aquariums on his boat too...


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I want to hear Ken's opinion of how salt water and fresh water fish, fish that can not survive in the other environment, how do have them now... Evolution would be working pretty fast in this case... Unless  Noah had aquariums on his boat too...



Not only how do we have them now but how did fresh water fish survive a world wide flood where salt water was mixed in?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 6, 2014)

TTom said:


> Best argument of the night was when Nye pointed out that if the "Kind" argument was true we would have had to have some 35 new species every day since the flood to arrive at the current number of species on earth.
> 
> We have a couple hundred years where this has not been observed to be happening, ergo the "Kind hypothesis" is flawed.




....but Ham never responded to that .


----------



## 660griz (Feb 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Not only how do we have them now but how did fresh water fish survive a world wide flood where salt water was mixed in?



They didn't. God wanted to kill everything. If they weren't on the boat, they died.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2014)

So let's just say we lost a lot of fish species, what was left was able to handle the salinity of the water in the flood, then go back to salt and fresh afterwards.... and now some can't handle brackish 4,000 years later. Sounds like some quick evolution must have happened.


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 6, 2014)

So true with many atheist---Im sure none here , but in the general population they become worshippers of state or govt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 6, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> So true with many atheist---Im sure none here , but in the general population they become worshippers of state or govt.


Really? Can you show us the data on that? Or is that just some stupid thing you made up?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Feb 6, 2014)

I have heard once (can't remember when or where) that the truth is somewhere in the middle. So could there be supernatural things that transcend man-made religions but don't disagree with the billions of years it took to create our world? I like to think so.

I don't believe in good versus evil, yet I have experienced things personally that don't adhere to the quantifiable laws of nature as we know them. 

So maybe there are things we can't explain yet - but I don't think anyone (any religion) has a lock on what is the absolute truth, because we as a species haven't arrived at that point yet.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 7, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> So true with many atheist---Im sure none here , but in the general population they become worshippers of state or govt.



Atheist here. See my sig. 
I worship nothing. Nothing deserving of worship would demand to be worshipped.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> Nothing deserving of worship would demand to be worshipped.



Good call.


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> Atheist here. See my sig.
> I worship nothing. Nothing deserving of worship would demand to be worshipped.



I suspect most atheist on the gon forum consider themselves libertarian. Bill Nye supports Democrats, and according to pew research data most atheist vote Democrat. It is my opinion along with a high percentage of Libertarians that I follow on facebook that modern Democrats are statist, and statist worship government.


----------



## Four (Feb 7, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> So true with many atheist---Im sure none here , but in the general population they become worshippers of state or govt.



There is actually a third point to that, Family. Generally at least one is worshiped, and when religion is pulled, its usually either family, government, or both.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> I have heard once (can't remember when or where) that the truth is somewhere in the middle. So could there be supernatural things that transcend man-made religions but don't disagree with the billions of years it took to create our world? I like to think so.
> 
> I don't believe in good versus evil, yet I have experienced things personally that don't adhere to the quantifiable laws of nature as we know them.
> 
> So maybe there are things we can't explain yet - but I don't think anyone (any religion) has a lock on what is the absolute truth, because we as a species haven't arrived at that point yet.



Care to share?


----------



## 660griz (Feb 7, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I suspect most atheist on the gon forum consider themselves libertarian.


 Perhaps. I do have more in common with them than any other party.  





> Bill Nye supports Democrats, and according to pew research data most atheist vote Democrat.


 I don't but, I am not as active on the anti-religious front as some. 





> It is my opinion along with a high percentage of Libertarians that I follow on facebook that modern Democrats are statist, and statist worship government.



It is Libertarians opinion that Democrats are statist? While that certainly may be true. That doesn't make an atheist that voted Democrat a Democrat or statist. I would also mention that while a statist may believe the answer to all our problems is government, that doesn't constitute worship. 
I always vote for the lesser of two evils. Usually the Republicans. I know science will take a hit but, they will leave most of my freedoms alone.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I suspect most atheist on the gon forum consider themselves libertarian. Bill Nye supports Democrats, and according to pew research data most atheist vote Democrat. It is my opinion along with a high percentage of Libertarians that I follow on facebook that modern Democrats are statist, and statist worship government.



I have been a registered Republican since I was 18. I thought it was a chance to help change the world. By the time I turned 40 I wanted to disassociate myself with each and every party.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I have been a registered Republican since I was 18. I thought it was a chance to help change the world. By the time I turned 40 I wanted to disassociate myself with each and every party.






....although, I reached my point of being disgusted with them all around 30.  But, that's because I had the advantage of seeing W with a friendly congress in my 20's.  That was enough.


----------



## Turkeypaw (Feb 9, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> ....although, I reached my point of being disgusted with them all around 30.  But, that's because I had the advantage of seeing W with a friendly congress in my 20's.  That was enough.



I became disgusted with them when I started voting at the age of 18. I vote for those with views that most closely match mine. I don't care what party they're affiliated with.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2014)

Turkeypaw said:


> I became disgusted with them when I started voting at the age of 18.



I was a die hard W fan, and was 20 when I voted for him the first time.  Had the "W" bumper stickers, etc.  It took me a while to catch up to the reality that very few of them believe in anything.....they just say whatever it is will get them the most votes.  Like I said in a previous post, W with a friendly congress cured me of my ways.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 20, 2014)

I watched this debate last night. C-SPAN aired it. Ken Ham dodged questions and used assertion like I have never seen it used before and did not provide one fact to back any of it up. He would make an assertion, Bill Nye would show how that assertion was false and back it up with facts, then Ken would continue to use the now false assertion as if nothing was ever mentioned to counter it. When asked a question directly, Ken would ramble on naming creation scientists and their work yet he would not ever answer the question asked.
It was an embarrassment to the young earthers.
Bill Nye did a decent job of using facts and trying to explain them in a way that most could understand.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I watched this debate last night. C-SPAN aired it. Ken Ham dodged questions and used assertion like I have never seen it used before and did not provide one fact to back any of it up. He would make an assertion, Bill Nye would show how that assertion was false and back it up with facts, then Ken would continue to use the now false assertion as if nothing was ever mentioned to counter it. When asked a question directly, Ken would ramble on naming creation scientists and their work yet he would not ever answer the question asked.
> It was an embarrassment to the young earthers.
> Bill Nye did a decent job of using facts and trying to explain them in a way that most could understand.




Young Earth Theory is an embarrassment to Young Earthers.


----------



## panfried0419 (Feb 20, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Young Earth Theory is an embarrassment to Young Earthers.



Not all us Christians believe in young earth theory. Nothing in the Bible determines God's definition of "days"...we could be living in his 7th day as we speak. Theistic evolution is great. 

Yeah Mr White...Yeah Science!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2014)

panfried0419 said:


> Not all us Christians believe in young earth theory. Nothing in the Bible determines God's definition of "days"...we could be living in his 7th day as we speak. Theistic evolution is great.
> 
> Yeah Mr White...Yeah Science!



Yeah, right. If your excuse is that God's definition of "days" is not like our definition of "days" then what makes you think every other word in the Bible is defined as we know it?  Didn't your God now who would be reading his book? Was he unable to put it into words and definitions that would be understandable?
Sleep tight knowing you have to make excuses for a..and I will use the term loosely... "God". Come to think of it, you might be onto something here..."God" as used in the Bible does not mean what we define it to be either..


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

This thread should be changed to "Why I'm Athiest/Thiest and you had better agree with my view or your a festering moron". 
Now, the God vs. No God debate is a timeless disagreement that will not be settled on a forum built for "outdoorsy" people; I have my faith and you have yours: enough said.

So far as the evolution hypothesis goes (yes, it is a hypothesis since nothing is clearly defined or proven) I don't see the evidence that one species, given time and the proper stimuli, can transform into another species of an entirely separate branch of the animal kingdom. It does, however, make sense to me (as well as being proven by the best evidence of all, reality) that a species, given time and the proper stimuli, can exhibit genetic traits that were dormant in their predecessors. This does not lead to new species just differences within them. The evidence is completely lacking  toward the grand claim that all species formed from a single life form that mutated enough times to finally arrange itself into the proper order so as to give rise to an entirely different life form: ludicrous. I don't presume to be highly intelligent, but don't insult me with such foolishness.

At any rate, I have enjoyed reading this thread. It was...Entertaining.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> This thread should be changed to "Why I'm Athiest/Thiest and you had better agree with my view or your a festering moron".
> Now, the God vs. No God debate is a timeless disagreement that will not be settled on a forum built for "outdoorsy" people; I have my faith and you have yours: enough said.
> 
> So far as the evolution hypothesis goes (yes, it is a hypothesis since nothing is clearly defined or proven) I don't see the evidence that one species, given time and the proper stimuli, can transform into another species of an entirely separate branch of the animal kingdom. It does, however, make sense to me (as well as being proven by the best evidence of all, reality) that a species, given time and the proper stimuli, can exhibit genetic traits that were dormant in their predecessors. This does not lead to new species just differences within them. The evidence is completely lacking  toward the grand claim that all species formed from a single life form that mutated enough times to finally arrange itself into the proper order so as to give rise to an entirely different life form: ludicrous. I don't presume to be highly intelligent, but don't insult me with such foolishness.
> ...




I think you are spot on in your assessment of what conclusions can be solidly drawn based the available evidence of evolution.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> This thread should be changed to "Why I'm Athiest/Thiest and you had better agree with my view or your a festering moron".
> .
> .
> .
> ...



I get to the festering moron piece when someone with faith tries to provide some kind of evidence that they hold to be logical. It's "ludicrous."

I agree that there is little CLEAR evidence for evolution of "kinds" but what you're leaving out of your reality is TIME... LOTS OF TIME. Millions of years. We can see with the reality you speak of a couple or maybe a few hundred years. What keeps it from being ludicrous to me is that given millions of years, I can't conclude that it couldn't happen... I also, don't worship, devote my life to or speak to evolution in my head.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> This thread should be changed to "Why I'm Athiest/Thiest and you had better agree with my view or your a festering moron".
> Now, the God vs. No God debate is a timeless disagreement that will not be settled on a forum built for "outdoorsy" people; I have my faith and you have yours: enough said.
> 
> So far as the evolution hypothesis goes (yes, it is a hypothesis since nothing is clearly defined or proven) I don't see the evidence that one species, given time and the proper stimuli, can transform into another species of an entirely separate branch of the animal kingdom. It does, however, make sense to me (as well as being proven by the best evidence of all, reality) that a species, given time and the proper stimuli, can exhibit genetic traits that were dormant in their predecessors. This does not lead to new species just differences within them. The evidence is completely lacking  toward the grand claim that all species formed from a single life form that mutated enough times to finally arrange itself into the proper order so as to give rise to an entirely different life form: ludicrous. I don't presume to be highly intelligent, but don't insult me with such foolishness.
> ...



Hey Evergreen.....I'm from Dallas too.  

Looks like you are new posting here.  Curious, have you read through many of the threads on this particular forum?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> This thread should be changed to "Why I'm Athiest/Thiest and you had better agree with my view or your a festering moron".
> Now, the God vs. No God debate is a timeless disagreement that will not be settled on a forum built for "outdoorsy" people; I have my faith and you have yours: enough said.
> 
> So far as the evolution hypothesis goes (yes, it is a hypothesis since nothing is clearly defined or proven) I don't see the evidence that one species, given time and the proper stimuli, can transform into another species of an entirely separate branch of the animal kingdom. It does, however, make sense to me (as well as being proven by the best evidence of all, reality) that a species, given time and the proper stimuli, can exhibit genetic traits that were dormant in their predecessors. This does not lead to new species just differences within them. The evidence is completely lacking  toward the grand claim that all species formed from a single life form that mutated enough times to finally arrange itself into the proper order so as to give rise to an entirely different life form: ludicrous. I don't presume to be highly intelligent, but don't insult me with such foolishness.
> ...



So which is it?  Are you a little intelligent but not highly intelligent enough to connect the possible dots?


----------



## 660griz (Apr 16, 2014)

The genetic code was cracked on the assumption of a universal genetic code. Simply put, all living organisms have something in common.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> The genetic code was cracked on the assumption of a universal genetic code. Simply put, all living organisms have something in common.



Yes, all living organisms - possessing cells that can replicate themselves - have the same building blocks  within their DNA (there are only four); but no amount of time -even billions of years - can rearrange these highly complex acid structures into something that is different from the original host in such a fashion as to have no means of reproduction. Simply put; If you have two horses and you breed them and their offspring to themselves over millions of generations, you will NOT magically, billions of years down the road, produce a cow. You may well produce something that "looks" like a cow, but upon genetic evaluation you'd soon discover that it is, in fact, still a Horse. NO amount of time or breeding or inter-special change can transform one thing into something completely different.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So which is it?  Are you a little intelligent but not highly intelligent enough to connect the possible dots?



Simply put, I'm not stupid enough to believe evolution based on the pitiful excuse for science folks are using to prove it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Hey Evergreen.....I'm from Dallas too.
> 
> Looks like you are new posting here.  Curious, have you read through many of the threads on this particular forum?



 Small world. I my apologies, I mis-typed. I meant to say Topic not Thread  . Sometimes I type too fast to give much thought for the particular word I'm using for an instance.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> I get to the festering moron piece when someone with faith tries to provide some kind of evidence that they hold to be logical. It's "ludicrous."
> 
> I agree that there is little CLEAR evidence for evolution of "kinds" but what you're leaving out of your reality is TIME... LOTS OF TIME. Millions of years. We can see with the reality you speak of a couple or maybe a few hundred years. What keeps it from being ludicrous to me is that given millions of years, I can't conclude that it couldn't happen...
> I also, don't worship, devote my life to or speak to evolution in my head.



My previous statements disprove your argument, so I'll not waste my breathe...or...fingers  ? 
Your last statement is probably better served on another thread, so I'll not answer to that either.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think you are spot on in your assessment of what conclusions can be solidly drawn based the available evidence of evolution.



Much obliged friend. These conclusions are fairly simple to come across (if I can make them, so can anyone). It seems, however, that people have attached themselves, like a barnacle, to the idea of Darwinian Evolution; any thought that contradicts this Hypothesis, basic logic, is quickly roped around the neck  and smothered to the ground until ,after enough of "science" (using the term VERY loosely) has been ingested, such thoughts reach extinction.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 16, 2014)

Welcome to the forum EverGreen. Hope you stick around for a while! Maybe get some new topics going.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> This thread should be changed to "Why I'm Athiest/Thiest and you had better agree with my view or your a festering moron".
> Now, the God vs. No God debate is a timeless disagreement that will not be settled on a forum built for "outdoorsy" people; I have my faith and you have yours: enough said.
> 
> So far as the evolution hypothesis goes (yes, it is a hypothesis since nothing is clearly defined or proven) I don't see the evidence that one species, given time and the proper stimuli, can transform into another species of an entirely separate branch of the animal kingdom. It does, however, make sense to me (as well as being proven by the best evidence of all, reality) that a species, given time and the proper stimuli, can exhibit genetic traits that were dormant in their predecessors. This does not lead to new species just differences within them. The evidence is completely lacking  toward the grand claim that all species formed from a single life form that mutated enough times to finally arrange itself into the proper order so as to give rise to an entirely different life form: ludicrous. I don't presume to be highly intelligent, but don't insult me with such foolishness.
> ...



So what do you think happened?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Welcome to the forum EverGreen. Hope you stick around for a while! Maybe get some new topics going.



 Much obliged. I like it here: being around like-minded people is a beautiful thing. As for the topics, well...perhaps in the due course of time. 

Love Barnesville, by the way. There's a great Bar-b-Que place in town and a book store just across the street; a veritable heaven on rainy days and during winter between seasons.

Though...I might be getting my towns mixed up. sometimes I they all look the same in my memory


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So what do you think happened?



I imagine your fishing for a "creationist" answer so that you can thrash around in a wild tantrum like some child that caught his younger sibling with his hand in the cookie jar after their mother told them they couldn't have one before supper; hoping, uselessly, that he'll be rewarded by some kind of sick gratification when his younger sibling is punished.

I will give no such gratification: I'll leave you guessing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I imagine your fishing for a "creationist" answer so that you can thrash around in a wild tantrum like some child that caught his younger sibling with his hand in the cookie jar after their mother told them they couldn't have one before supper; hoping, uselessly, that he'll be rewarded by some kind of sick gratification when his younger sibling is punished.
> 
> I will give no such gratification: I'll leave you guessing.



Go get em tiger.
Just come in here and throw rocks but don't give the address to your glass house.....


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Go get em tiger.
> Just come in here and throw rocks but don't give the address to your glass house.....



One can hurl rocks safely provided his house is made of stone.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> One can hurl rocks safely provided his house is made of stone.



engineering student...go figure


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Yes, all living organisms - possessing cells that can replicate themselves - have the same building blocks  within their DNA (there are only four); but no amount of time -even billions of years - can rearrange these highly complex acid structures into something that is different from the original host in such a fashion as to have no means of reproduction. Simply put; If you have two horses and you breed them and their offspring to themselves over millions of generations, you will NOT magically, billions of years down the road, produce a cow. You may well produce something that "looks" like a cow, but upon genetic evaluation you'd soon discover that it is, in fact, still a Horse. NO amount of time or breeding or inter-special change can transform one thing into something completely different.



Isolated evolution and the fossil record say differently.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> One can hurl rocks safely provided his house is made of stone.



Problem is...nothing was provided.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Problem is...nothing was provided.



If you read carefully, it was.



bullethead said:


> Isolated evolution and the fossil record say differently.



There you go using that so-called "science" again; you know, that which is based on assumptions and gross overgeneralizations.

But, since I'm waiting for my program to finish running, what, exactly, in "Isolated evolution" and "the fossil record" tell you differently. Both of them depend upon the assumption that their are missing links that, shockingly, are still missing.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> If you read carefully, it was.


Mmmm, nope





EverGreen1231 said:


> There you go using that so-called "science" again; you know, that which is based on assumptions and gross overgeneralizations.


As compared to you using.......what exactly??



EverGreen1231 said:


> But, since I'm waiting for my program to finish running, what, exactly, in "Isolated evolution" and "the fossil record" tell you differently. Both of them depend upon the assumption that their are missing links that, shockingly, are still missing.



Ohhhh NOW you want to converse....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So which is it?  Are you a little intelligent but not highly intelligent enough to connect the possible dots?



"Possible dots"?  I appreciate your honesty.   Just curious, but how "intelligent" does one have to be to connect the "possible dots"?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Mmmm, nope
> 
> read again.
> 
> ...



Seems like if you were ever interested in conversation you'd have jumped in by now: Conversation was always open, still is, but you seem content asking meaningless questions instead of giving an intelligible rebuttal.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

I must have a made a mistake quoting my last post. No matter, I think it's clear what statement belongs to whom


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Updated May 14, 2010 (first posted May 13, 2010)

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.


Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.

The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.

The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.


Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.

The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

(As of publication time, requests for interviews with several creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.)

(Related pictures: "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Six Bones of Contention.")

Putting Darwin to the Test

All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences—instructions written in the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts of DNA bases—differ slightly among the three domains (quick genetics overview).

The 23 universal proteins perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins, and are crucial to the survival of all known life-forms—from the smallest microbes to blue whales.

A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are, Theobald said.

That's because, if the original protein set was the same for all creatures, a relatively small number of mutations would have been needed to arrive at the modern proteins, he said. If life arose from multiple species—each with a different set of proteins—many more mutations would have been required.

But Theobald hoped to go beyond conventional wisdom.

"What I wanted to do was not make the assumption that similar traits imply a shared ancestry ... because we know that's not always true," Theobald said.

"For instance, you could get similarities that are not due to common ancestry but that are due to natural selection"—that is, when environmental forces, such as predators or climate, result in certain mutations taking hold, such as claws or thicker fur.

Biologists call the independent development of similar traits in different lineages "convergent evolution." The wings of bats, birds, and insects are prime examples: They perform similar functions but evolved independently of one another.

But it's highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences, according to the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Nature.

"I asked, What's the probability that I would see a human DNA polymerase [protein] sequence and another protein with an E. coli DNA polymerase sequence?" he explained.

"It turns out that probability is much higher if you use the hypothesis that [humans and E. coli] are actually related."

(Related: "Future Humans: Four Ways We May, or May Not, Evolve.")

No Special Treatment for Evolutionary Theory?

David Penny, an evolutionary biologist at Massey University in New Zealand, called the grand scope of Theobald's study "bold."

Penny had been part of a similar, but more narrowly focused, study in the 1980s. His team had looked at shared proteins in mammals and concluded that different mammalian species are likely descended from a common ancestor.

Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do, said Penny, who wasn't part of the new study.

"Evolution," he said, "should not be given any special status."


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 16, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "Possible dots"?  I appreciate your honesty.   Just curious, but how "intelligent" does one have to be to connect the "possible dots"?



My five year old understands it.  She understands talking, burning bushes too...as fiction.

"See sweetheart, these very simple animals are found in the really, REALLY old rocks.  The more complicated animals show up in the younger rocks.  See how in these rocks there are only fish and in the young rocks there are lizards and in between are animals that are like fish mixed with lizards?  Simple isn't it My Darling?"


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Seems like if you were ever interested in conversation you'd have jumped in by now: Conversation was always open, still is, but you seem content asking meaningless questions instead of giving an intelligible rebuttal.


Meaningless questions....like..."What do you think happened?"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> My previous statements disprove your argument, so I'll not waste my breathe...or...fingers  ?
> Your last statement is probably better served on another thread, so I'll not answer to that either.




There was no question to be answered.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 16, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I imagine your fishing for a "creationist" answer so that you can thrash around in a wild tantrum like some child that caught his younger sibling with his hand in the cookie jar after their mother told them they couldn't have one before supper; hoping, uselessly, that he'll be rewarded by some kind of sick gratification when his younger sibling is punished.
> 
> I will give no such gratification: I'll leave you guessing.



Here I thought this guy was going to contribute something..


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 16, 2014)

> Ker Than
> 
> for National Geographic News
> 
> ...



We’re talking evolution – which takes place after the first self-replicating cell was created (however that might have been, for arguments sake). This article – or, I think it’s an article – seems to flounder between how life arose and how it changed over time. Two vastly different arguments, and that discredits this for me to some extent.

Was there any mention of the probability that all species arose from a common ancestor?

Do the algorithms Theobald used account for there to be “intelligent design” as an answer to the “spontaneous” arrival of humans in their current form? It would have to since something can’t arise from something that is in a current state of stability unless propagated by some other force. I would like to see the algorithms myself, it would be an interesting study.



> Putting Darwin to the Test
> 
> All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences—instructions written in the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts of DNA bases—differ slightly among the three domains (quick genetics overview).
> 
> ...



“relatively small”, “is generally assumed”, Yes, very “scientific” language.
These “findings” rely on the ASSUMPTION that different life forms – where they have “evolved” from different common ancestors – would have different protein sets. Where’s the proof? Give me facts, data, algorithms: Repeating rudimentary genetics and assuming things that have not been founded in anything more than a personal opinion is not science. Why should it automatically be assumed that if there are three shared ancestral lines that led to the rise of all life that these lines would “have” to contain separate protein sets? If his “calculations” are based on such assumptions I feel safe in deducing his calculations to be flawed.



> (Related: "Future Humans: Four Ways We May, or May Not, Evolve.")
> 
> No Special Treatment for Evolutionary Theory?
> 
> ...



I would have to look more into this portion to determine the validity; if it holds similar language to the other two portions it will be “on the fence” as they say. 
As far as “Evolution should not be given any special status” quote, I think we’d all agree in saying that it is, with no small level of certainty.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2014)

Still interested in what you think happened......
Just so I can check the validity.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Welcome to the forum EverGreen. Hope you stick around for a while! Maybe get some new topics going.



.....And this ^^^^^

There haven't been this many posts in a month down here.

Evergreen, the question is on the table as to what you think happened.  I believe God created life, but I also believe life has evolved to current form.  I'm a Christian.  That is often considered a compromise position, but I don't see it as such.

I think God did it, and science explains the mechanics of it all.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> .....And this ^^^^^
> 
> There haven't been this many posts in a month down here.
> 
> ...



Sounds to me like he believes that everything was created as a "kind"; specific and distinct and changes have only occurred _within_ the "kinds".


----------



## 660griz (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> but no amount of time -even billions of years - can rearrange these highly complex acid structures into something that is different from the original host in such a fashion as to have no means of reproduction. Simply put; If you have two horses and you breed them and their offspring to themselves over millions of generations, you will NOT magically, billions of years down the road, produce a cow. You may well produce something that "looks" like a cow, but upon genetic evaluation you'd soon discover that it is, in fact, still a Horse. NO amount of time or breeding or inter-special change can transform one thing into something completely different.



Wow! You should write a book. You know stuff thousands of scientist are still working on. You could save them a lot of time. 
I was going to post a link with evidence supporting macroevolution but, what is the point. You already know the answer.
"God did it." Bold and cerebral.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2014)

I am so interested in what evergreen thinks happened but I am positive that it includes assumptions,gross over-generalizations and will have it's validity questioned to the point that he is unwilling to share his beliefs. Sticking with his "caught with a hand in the cookie jar" analogy..he plays the role of the kid that not only denies taking a cookie, but whines about the recipe and all the while the crumbs are still in the corner of his mouth...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 17, 2014)

I see the ceiling is especially low today.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I see the ceiling is especially low today.



Just seems that way to a person that is always on a soap box.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2014)

Evergreen, if you haven't noticed, Bullet really, really wants to tell you that God doesn't exist.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Much obliged. I like it here: being around like-minded people is a beautiful thing. As for the topics, well...perhaps in the due course of time.
> 
> Love Barnesville, by the way. There's a great Bar-b-Que place in town and a book store just across the street; a veritable heaven on rainy days and during winter between seasons.
> 
> Though...I might be getting my towns mixed up. sometimes I they all look the same in my memory



Yea, there are a couple of decent places to eat in Barnesville, although I live much closer to High Falls state park near I-75.

I've actually been to Woodbury a few times myself. Went to Cedar Rock for their grand opening years ago, Micheal Waddell was there.

Also ate at a restaurant near some train tracks close to down town Woodbury, at least I'm pretty sure it was Woodbury? Think it was seafood. Pretty good if I remember correctly.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I must have a made a mistake quoting my last post. No matter, I think it's clear what statement belongs to whom



Oh yeah.  You're gonna be well received here, quite possibly even more than me.  In case you ain't figured it out many of those who have already made your acquaintance ain't real fond of, nor have any regard for intelligent conversation, much less intellectually honest intelligent conversation.  Just don't get your hopes up, be prepared to counter endless lies and overlook all the denigration and you will be fine.  Hope you stay a long time.  If you get burnt out, take a break for a while or just quit altogether.  It ain't worth becoming bitter over.  The guys here are here because they hate the very idea of God no matter what they say.  Chances are they will never change.  Just keep in mind that there's a larger audience than just the few that post here, and when you post it's those who you are presenting to and unlike these guys, they will recognize truth when it's presented to them.  And if you ain't figured it out yet you can't lose as long as you tell the truth, so just stick with the truth and let the atheistic arguments be exposed for the foolhardy notions that they are.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2014)

Very interesting show.  Saw part 1 last week and part 2 last night.

http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/

Back to the OP.

Did any of the Creationists here watch the Bill Nye debate?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> .....And this ^^^^^
> 
> There haven't been this many posts in a month down here.
> 
> ...





> I believe God created life, but I also believe life has evolved to current form.  I'm a Christian.  That is often considered a compromise position, but I don't see it as such.


I'm curious as to what the argument is that this a "compromise"?
That things have evolved is a fact. Then add the belief that God originally made them.
Considering those two things what other legitimate position (for a Christian) could there be?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, there are a couple of decent places to eat in Barnesville, although I live much closer to High Falls state park near I-75.
> 
> I've actually been to Woodbury a few times myself. Went to Cedar Rock for their grand opening years ago, Micheal Waddell was there.
> 
> Also ate at a restaurant near some train tracks close to down town Woodbury, at least I'm pretty sure it was Woodbury? Think it was seafood. Pretty good if I remember correctly.



High Falls? I seem to remember an article in GON, not to long ago, That told of some fine bass fishing there. I think it was last months article, can't recall. 
That little restaurant is my grand fathers favorite place to eat on Friday and Saturday nights, he goes any time he's not in the mood for pizza (or when he's too tired to drive to Newnan  ). I usually tag along with him. And yes, it is good (especially the catfish on Friday evenings).



stringmusic said:


> Evergreen, if you haven't noticed, Bullet really, really wants to tell you that God doesn't exist.



Yes, it's sad really; and is also the reason why I refuse to give him that opportunity. If his science is so unequivocally irrefutable, he'd have silenced the likes of me many 'a post ago without too much effort or the need to know my side of the story. He is correct in asserting that my beliefs are based the same as his: nothing but my faith.

 Addendum -  Yes, the believe that evolution is fact relies on faith. And to those that would ask me to prove the existence of God, I can't. No one can. To those I would ask to disprove the existence of God, they can't. No one can. I feel or don't feel, see or don't see his existence; there for I do, or don't, believe. These assumptions rely on faith; faith that your assumptions can be correct (which is far from sure given fallibility of human nature): this is my overarching point. If evolution is scientific fact; like the fact that light and electrons are constituted by a Wave/particle duality (E = mc^2); or that in order for a power system to be balanced all phases must have the same magnitude and phase serving the same amount of load; or that, by Faraday's law, a changing magnetic flux will induce an electromagnetic field in a coil of wire, producing electron flow and current; it must be founded in fact, proven in such a way as to require no faith, on the part of the one studying the subject, to hold as fact. The above examples have been proven beyond reasonable doubt; however, Evolution has been proven by no such facts. Should, one day, we have sufficient knowledge and technology to design experiments that can adequately test the hypothesis, and should the experiments conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that, yes; evolution is the process by which the plethora of species that currently exist, and those that have perished in the course of time, came to be: I will gladly welcome it to the fold of the many other scientific wonders that govern life and the universe, and I will hold it as a marvelous blessing to know such a fact exists: to see it proven with my own eyes. However, until such proof exists, I will remain, respectfully, skeptical.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious as to what the argument is that this a "compromise"?
> That things have evolved is a fact. Then add the belief that God originally made them.
> Considering those two things what other legitimate position (for a Christian) could there be?



In Christian circles, "conceding" to science over traditionally held beliefs of what the Bible says is considered a compromise position.  This is typically from those who take an absolutist approach to the creation story (7 24 hr periods, in that order).  Allowing for scientific explanation of scripture which does not fit into the traditional interpretation can be, and often is, considered "compromising."  My counter argument is that the Bible does not give specific details on anything where creation is concerned, just a very generic overview.  Lets say the garden of Eden occurred as is traditionally believed, the Bible also leaves out the molecular change that occured when dust became man......which leads me to conclude that this could have happened in any number of ways, as there is no specifics on the event.

I don't think the Bible was intended to be a scientific document, rather, and particularly in Genesis, an overview where the major theme is "God dun it."  This is passed along to the reader.

That's where science comes in.  Yes, I cetainly believe "God dun it," but, I also believe science allows us to understand how he did so.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> High Falls? I seem to remember an article in GON, not to long ago, That told of some fine bass fishing there. I think it was last months article, can't recall.
> That little restaurant is my grand fathers favorite place to eat on Friday and Saturday nights, he goes any time he's not in the mood for pizza (or when he's too tired to drive to Newnan  ). I usually tag along with him. And yes, it is good (especially the catfish on Friday evenings).
> 
> 
> ...





JB0704 said:


> In Christian circles, "conceding" to science over traditionally held beliefs of what the Bible says is considered a compromise position.  This is typically from those who take an absolutist approach to the creation story (7 24 hr periods, in that order).  Allowing for scientific explanation of scripture which does not fit into the traditional interpretation can be, and often is, considered "compromising."  My counter argument is that the Bible does not give specific details on anything where creation is concerned, just a very generic overview.  Lets say the garden of Eden occurred as is traditionally believed, the Bible also leaves out the molecular change that occured when dust became man......which leads me to conclude that this could have happened in any number of ways, as there is no specifics on the event.
> 
> I don't think the Bible was intended to be a scientific document, rather, and particularly in Genesis, an overview where the major theme is "God dun it."  This is passed along to the reader.
> 
> That's where science comes in.  Yes, I cetainly believe "God dun it," but, I also believe science allows us to understand how he did so.






Man, it's gettin' good in here today!


----------



## Ridge Walker (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Yes, it's sad really; and is also the reason why I refuse to give him that opportunity. If his science is so unequivocally irrefutable, he'd have silenced the likes of me many 'a post ago without too much effort or the need to know my side of the story. He is correct in asserting that my beliefs are based the same as his: nothing but my faith.



Actually, his belief is NOT unequivocally irrefutable but it is supported through the scientific method. Your belief, on the other hand, is based on nothing but faith.

RW


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> In Christian circles, "conceding" to science over traditionally held beliefs of what the Bible says is considered a compromise position.  This is typically from those who take an absolutist approach to the creation story (7 24 hr periods, in that order).  Allowing for scientific explanation of scripture which does not fit into the traditional interpretation can be, and often is, considered "compromising."  My counter argument is that the Bible does not give specific details on anything where creation is concerned, just a very generic overview.  Lets say the garden of Eden occurred as is traditionally believed, the Bible also leaves out the molecular change that occured when dust became man......which leads me to conclude that this could have happened in any number of ways, as there is no specifics on the event.
> 
> I don't think the Bible was intended to be a scientific document, rather, and particularly in Genesis, an overview where the major theme is "God dun it."  This is passed along to the reader.
> 
> That's where science comes in.  Yes, I cetainly believe "God dun it," but, I also believe science allows us to understand how he did so.


Seems like God dun it and then things evolved would encompass both belief that God dun it to begin with (as the Bible says) and also acknowledging the fact that things have evolved/changed.
I just don't see the compromise in that.
If you start out with God dun it you aren't compromising.
Im not an expert on the Bible but Im not aware of it saying "God created this and it will never evolve/change in any way".


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Actually, his belief is NOT unequivocally irrefutable but it is supported through the scientific method. Your belief, on the other hand, is based on nothing but faith.
> 
> RW



Scientific method: (simply)
1.) Observance
2.) Falsifiable Hypothesis
3.) Testing/Experimentation
4.) Observe results
5.) Create theory based on said results

I trust I don't have to re-explain to you why Evolution has most certainly NOT been proven in using any method, much less using the Scientific method. To presume as much is insulting to Science...try again.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Apr 17, 2014)

Of course it isn't proven, it's a theory  not a law. Who said otherwise?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Scientific method: (simply)
> 1.) Observance
> 2.) Falsifiable Hypothesis
> 3.) Testing/Experimentation
> ...



I must apologize the "try again" portion was rude and unnecessary. Forgive me, if you would.

I'm having trouble with a program I've written and can't seem to get the bugs out. It's, understandably, frustrating.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like God dun it and then things evolved would encompass both belief that God dun it to begin with (as the Bible says) and also acknowledging the fact that things have evolved/changed.
> I just don't see the compromise in that.
> If you start out with God dun it you aren't compromising.Im not an expert on the Bible but Im not aware of it saying "God created this and it will never evolve/change in any way".



You and I agree on that.  The issue comes in when interpretation of what it's saying becomes equivalent to one's faith in the message.  Many people in Christian circles will take a different stance than I do.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> High Falls? I seem to remember an article in GON, not to long ago, That told of some fine bass fishing there. I think it was last months article, can't recall.
> That little restaurant is my grand fathers favorite place to eat on Friday and Saturday nights, he goes any time he's not in the mood for pizza (or when he's too tired to drive to Newnan  ). I usually tag along with him. And yes, it is good (especially the catfish on Friday evenings).
> 
> 
> ...





> and I will hold it as a marvelous blessing to know such a fact exists: to see it proven with my own eyes. However, until such proof exists, I will remain, respectfully, skeptical.


Interesting argument. If that was the only paragraph I had ever read from you I would think you were, at the least, an Agnostic.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Apr 17, 2014)

Just in case you are confused as to what a theory is, here's an explanation from Livescience.com: "When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."


So again, Bullethead's beliefs are based on something other than faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> You and I agree on that.  The issue comes in when *interpretation* of what it's saying becomes equivalent to one's faith in the message.  Many people in Christian circles will take a different stance than I do.


When you think about it, its amazing how much impact that one word has on religion (and science and and and..)


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Of course it isn't proven, it's a theory  not a law. Who said otherwise?



Einstein's THEORY. Energy is equated to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Proven, by Experimentation and Engineering practices, beyond reasonable doubt. Anything that dawn's the coat of being "scientific" must follow the scientific method. 
Einstein hypothesized that light was made of nothing more than pressure waves - this is the falsifiable hypothesis and the general consensus of the times. He then did a large amount of theoretical work - which can be found in his book, should you be interested. He found, after performing the mathematics, that light is both particle and energy: Hence, his Theory E = mc^2 was formed. Should someone come along and refute Einstein. then a new theory will have to be adopted, or Einstein's amended.
Evolution, at least, that I've heard, has only ever been Observance and non-falsifiable hypothesis. Hence nothing has the availability to be proven or theorized making the consideration of evolution as sound science, as I stated earlier, an insult to science.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

Ridge Walker said:


> Just in case you are confused as to what a theory is, here's an explanation from Livescience.com: "When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."
> 
> 
> So again, Bullethead's beliefs are based on something other than faith.



I redirect you to my first reply.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Interesting argument. If that was the only paragraph I had ever read from you I would think you were, at the least, an Agnostic.



I can see where you might think that; but I do not hold, nor have I ever held, that God can be explained scientifically.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I can see where you might think that; but I do not hold, nor have I ever held, that God can be explained scientifically.


Well I assumed that. I just find it interesting how analytical your mind set is for the "against" argument requiring proof, data, formulas, seeing it with your own eyes etc and without it you are "respectfully skeptical".
Yet on the flip side......


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Well I assumed that. I just find it interesting how analytical your mind set is for the "against" argument requiring proof, data, formulas, seeing it with your own eyes etc and without it you are "respectfully skeptical".
> Yet on the flip side......



In my first post I said that I would avoid the God vs. No God debate; since no one will be persuaded to deviate from their current belief system based off what they read on the GON forum (at least, I wouldn't think so). Suffice to say: Science, by definition, must be taken on literal grounds; religion is founded in faith and things of the metaphysical realm. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". I love science, but it does not hold all the answers.
I don't see, nor do I have, any contradictions with my faith and science: they complement each other rather wonderfully.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen,

Did you watch the Debate?  Would you?  Would you watch the other show that I linked?  

http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/

I'd like to know what your objections would be to any of the information offered in either.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> In my first post I said that I would avoid the God vs. No God debate; since no one will be persuaded to deviate from their current belief system based off what they read on the GON forum (at least, I wouldn't think so). Suffice to say: Science, by definition, must be taken on literal grounds; religion is founded in faith and things of the metaphysical realm. "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen". I love science, but it does not hold all the answers.
> I don't see, nor do I have, any contradictions with my faith and science: they complement each other rather wonderfully.


I just find the two opposite mind sets interesting. No more, no less. Its not specific to you and in fact its fairly common.


> no one will be persuaded to deviate from their current belief system based off what they read on the GON forum


I think the majority of us agree. Actually what ends up happening is the opposite. 
Although debates can appear "heated", most of us have a good deal of respect for most of us. 
Heck, given the opportunity, some of us might even hunt or fish together away from here.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh yeah.  You're gonna be well received here, quite possibly even more than me.  In case you ain't figured it out many of those who have already made your acquaintance ain't real fond of, nor have any regard for intelligent conversation, much less intellectually honest intelligent conversation.  Just don't get your hopes up, be prepared to counter endless lies and overlook all the denigration and you will be fine.  Hope you stay a long time.  If you get burnt out, take a break for a while or just quit altogether.  It ain't worth becoming bitter over.  The guys here are here because they hate the very idea of God no matter what they say.  Chances are they will never change.  Just keep in mind that there's a larger audience than just the few that post here, and when you post it's those who you are presenting to and unlike these guys, they will recognize truth when it's presented to them.  And if you ain't figured it out yet you can't lose as long as you tell the truth, so just stick with the truth and let the atheistic arguments be exposed for the foolhardy notions that they are.



On the contrary, I like the notions of God and Karma and Fate, I just don't have any evidence of them.

What do you think about those people in the "larger audience" who have never heard about Evolutionary Theory or those who have heard it but have dismissed it because their parents or pastors told them it was of the Devil?  Are they better off?  Do you think that most of the A&A's here haven't examined Christian philosophy and history?  What percentage of the A&A's here do you think have studied other religions? 

You know I have always conceded that if a God being exists that it could most certainly make a burning bush or a snake or a donkey talk.  Is that intellectually honest enough for you?  Now let me ask you, and answer in the most intellectually honest way you can, what is the likelihood of such things ever happening? 

Now tell me the TRUTH so that we will all be better off, did a man live in a fish for 3 days?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> In my first post I said that I would avoid the God vs. No God debate; since no one will be persuaded to deviate from their current belief system based off what they read on the GON forum (at least, I wouldn't think so). Suffice to say: Science, by definition, must be taken on literal grounds; religion is founded in faith and things of the metaphysical realm. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". I love science, but it does not hold all the answers.
> I don't see, nor do I have, any contradictions with my faith and science: they complement each other rather wonderfully.



A talking burning bush or a talking donkey would change my mind.  It really, really would. If God exists he knows that because he can see into my heart.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> EverGreen,
> 
> Did you watch the Debate?  Would you?  Would you watch the other show that I linked?
> 
> ...



I might consider it, provided It get more than 5 - 15 minutes of free time. I generally avoid videos since I can't seem to keep focus on the argument for the mannerisms of those debating; I generally opt for books or articles the debaters have written or were quoted in.
Silly? Why yes, yes it is.



WaltL1 said:


> I just find the two opposite mind sets interesting. No more, no less. Its not specific to you and in fact its fairly common.
> 
> I think the majority of us agree. Actually what ends up happening is the opposite.
> Although debates can appear "heated", most of us have a good deal of respect for most of us.
> Heck, given the opportunity, some of us might even hunt or fish together away from here.



To your first comment...agreed.

To the second comment...agreed


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> A talking burning bush or a talking donkey would change my mind.  It really, really would. If God exists he knows that because he can see into my heart.



No; it really, really wouldn't.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I might consider it, provided It get more than 5 - 15 minutes of free time. I generally avoid videos since I can't seem to keep focus on the argument for the mannerisms of those debating; I generally opt for books or articles the debaters have written or were quoted in.
> Silly? Why yes, yes it is.



Gonna be hard to discuss the OP then.......


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> On the contrary, I like the notions of God and Karma and Fate, I just don't have any evidence of them.
> 
> What do you think about those people in the "larger audience" who have never heard about Evolutionary Theory or those who have heard it but have dismissed it because their parents or pastors told them it was of the Devil?  Are they better off?  Do you think that most of the A&A's here haven't examined Christian philosophy and history?  What percentage of the A&A's here do you think have studied other religions?
> 
> ...



100% and sho did.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Evergreen, if you haven't noticed, Bullet really, really wants to tell you that God doesn't exist.



I wouldn't say that at all. I always like to hear what people believe and why. I thought it made for good conversation. I like to ask questions that get into detail and hope to hear something that I have not heard before.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh yeah.  You're gonna be well received here, quite possibly even more than me.  In case you ain't figured it out many of those who have already made your acquaintance ain't real fond of, nor have any regard for intelligent conversation, much less intellectually honest intelligent conversation.  Just don't get your hopes up, be prepared to counter endless lies and overlook all the denigration and you will be fine.  Hope you stay a long time.  If you get burnt out, take a break for a while or just quit altogether.  It ain't worth becoming bitter over.  The guys here are here because they hate the very idea of God no matter what they say.  Chances are they will never change.  Just keep in mind that there's a larger audience than just the few that post here, and when you post it's those who you are presenting to and unlike these guys, they will recognize truth when it's presented to them.  And if you ain't figured it out yet you can't lose as long as you tell the truth, so just stick with the truth and let the atheistic arguments be exposed for the foolhardy notions that they are.



Get over yourself. Your constant assertions and baseless ramblings going off of what you THINK goes on in here have long worn thin. Instead of jumping at the chance to spout off more nonsense let evergreen get to know everyone one on one instead of you nosing in and trying to sway someone into your line of thought. You get a hard time in here solely because of posts like you make above.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 100% and sho did.




What's your basis for this?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No; it really, really wouldn't.



It's like those drawings where two people look at it, and one sees a princess and another sees an old lady.  It's not that one person has better vision than the other......it's just that in our case we believe we see the intent of the artist, and they see a circumstance of chance creating the illusion of intent.  

Ambush would believe if a donkey talked to him, most of these guys would.   These debates work better when folks are taken at their word.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 18, 2014)

A man being swallowed by a whale, not much of a miracle. Now, a whale being swallowed by a man, that is a miracle. 



> From JB: Ambush would believe if a donkey talked to him, most of these guys would. These debates work better when folks are taken at their word.



Thanks JB. Well said.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What's your basis for this?



I was there.   Saw the whole thing, but it wasn't a whale.  Actually have it on video.  Was fishing for redbreast when I heard this commotion out by the jetty.  Looked up just in time to see this giant flathead kinda come up and spit this fella out like a watermelon seed.  I grabbed my camcorder just in time to catch it all.  Jonah landed in a patch of gallberry bushes and that helped break his fall.  He come stumbling out of the bushes and man he was a mess.  He was all covered in catfish emesis.  Had a half digested minnow stuck in his left ear.  He rinsed off with the melt water from my cooler(didn't want to go back near the edge for some reason), ate a handful of my crickets(said they tasted like locust) and then just took off down the trail toward Nineveh.  It was like he was on a mission or something.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 18, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> He rinsed off with the melt water from my cooler



I tried that once. Had to squat to pee for a week. Waaay too cold.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I was there.   Saw the whole thing, but it wasn't a whale.  Actually have it on video.  Was fishing for redbreast when I heard this commotion out by the jetty.  Looked up just in time to see this giant flathead kinda come up and spit this fella out like a watermelon seed.  I grabbed my camcorder just in time to catch it all.  Jonah landed in a patch of gallberry bushes and that helped break his fall.  He come stumbling out of the bushes and man he was a mess.  He was all covered in catfish emesis.  Had a half digested minnow stuck in his left ear.  He rinsed off with the melt water from my cooler(didn't want to go back near the edge for some reason), ate a handful of my crickets(said they tasted like locust) and then just took off down the trail toward Nineveh.  It was like he was on a mission or something.




.....what was all that talk about low ceilings?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> .....what was all that talk about low ceilings?



And intellectual honesty???!?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 18, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> High Falls? I seem to remember an article in GON, not to long ago, That told of some fine bass fishing there. I think it was last months article, can't recall.
> That little restaurant is my grand fathers favorite place to eat on Friday and Saturday nights, he goes any time he's not in the mood for pizza (or when he's too tired to drive to Newnan  ). I usually tag along with him. And yes, it is good (especially the catfish on Friday evenings).
> 
> 
> ...



Congrats.  I think you just won the "longest sentence ever" award for Woody's.  And from Woodbury too!  

All that talk about writing programs, I bet you went to college.  Hey, me too.  I just learned to type real slow so the unwashed masses around here could keep up.  you might want to not get so wordy, folks might think you drink your sweet tea pinky out.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 18, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Congrats.  I think you just won the "longest sentence ever" award for Woody's.  And from Woodbury too!
> 
> All that talk about writing programs, I bet you went to college.  Hey, me too.  I just learned to type real slow so the unwashed masses around here could keep up.  you might want to not get so wordy, folks might think you drink your sweet tea pinky out.



 It’s most likely not even remotely close to being grammatically correct, and, honestly, it is a bit too verbose. But if you can get past my interminable gable, the points are valid.
 I guess language that uses words like “interminable” and “verbose” is comfortable for me to use since I’ve read a fair deal since I was in grade school (Dinosaurs, astronomy, and biology were the things I enjoyed most; I was, and remain, a peculiar person.) I’m sorry if my posts are hard to read (not that I think anyone to be incapable of understanding them), I’ll try to cut down on unnecessary verbiage.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 18, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It's like those drawings where two people look at it, and one sees a princess and another sees an old lady.  It's not that one person has better vision than the other......it's just that in our case we believe we see the intent of the artist, and they see a circumstance of chance creating the illusion of intent.
> 
> Ambush would believe if a donkey talked to him, most of these guys would.   These debates work better when folks are taken at their word.


I find it difficult to believe that someone who so strongly cleaves to the idea of there not being a God would then, when faced with something that is inexplicable with what little science they know or can be reasoned away, turn around and recant that belief. It’s the negative of, in older times, people using thunder and lightning as evidence proposing the existence of a Deity; much the same way a child will think that “bump” they heard in the night to be a monster lurking around in their closet. It would be like me saying “I can’t provide a logical explanation for *insert phenomenon here* so therefore there must be a God”, a statement, of which, is a cornerstone of the atheistic argument against God. So, no; it really, really wouldn’t.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I find it difficult to believe that someone who so strongly cleaves to the idea of there not being a God would then, when faced with something that is inexplicable with what little science they know or can be reasoned away, turn around and recant that belief. It’s the negative of, in older times, people using thunder and lightning as evidence proposing the existence of a Deity; much the same way a child will think that “bump” they heard in the night to be a monster lurking around in their closet. It would be like me saying “I can’t provide a logical explanation for *insert phenomenon here* so therefore there must be a God”, a statement, of which, is a cornerstone of the atheistic argument against God. So, no; it really, really wouldn’t.



I've been staying out of this sub-forum for a while, focusing on my personal relationship with God, but this relates closely to an issue I'm currently dealing with, so I couldn't resist.

If God attempted to make His presence known to Ambush, do you think God would fail?

Or do you think that Ambush would know with all certainty  that God exists but lie and deny that fact for some reason?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I've been staying out of this sub-forum for a while, focusing on my personal relationship with God, but this relates closely to an issue I'm currently dealing with, so I couldn't resist.
> 
> If God attempted to make His presence known to Ambush, do you think God would fail?
> 
> Or do you think that Ambush would know with all certainty  that God exists but lie and deny that fact for some reason?



Or better yet, If God made himself known to Ambush, would he like the questions Ambush asked?  Or would it prompt another world wide flood?  WWFII if you will.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I find it difficult to believe that someone who so strongly cleaves to the idea of there not being a God would then, when faced with something that is inexplicable with what little science they know or can be reasoned away, turn around and recant that belief. It’s the negative of, in older times, people using thunder and lightning as evidence proposing the existence of a Deity; much the same way a child will think that “bump” they heard in the night to be a monster lurking around in their closet. It would be like me saying “I can’t provide a logical explanation for *insert phenomenon here* so therefore there must be a God”, a statement, of which, is a cornerstone of the atheistic argument against God. So, no; it really, really wouldn’t.



If the bush in my front yard burst into flames and said "Ambush, this is the lord thy god." I would pay attention.  Who wouldn't?  

Let me ask you. If a burning talking bush told you that it was Vishnu the one true god would you believe it?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I've been staying out of this sub-forum for a while, focusing on my personal relationship with God, but this relates closely to an issue I'm currently dealing with, so I couldn't resist.
> 
> If God attempted to make His presence known to Ambush, do you think God would fail?
> 
> Or do you think that Ambush would know with all certainty  that God exists but lie and deny that fact for some reason?



Exactly.
If I, ambush or you Hawg were genuine in asking God to reveal himself to us (which I am fairly positive that each of us have over the years) wouldn't God be capable of doing it in a way that is unique to each of us and in a way that is undeniable?
I am not concerned with the people in here that think whether or not I am genuine because they are going by their own standards and are just hypocritically judgmental. Being a god...the God...God...would know  how to relate to me. For what I have asked it would be a small almost insignificant task compared to many other things a god gets credit for. For what I've given I think I have earned a response. I am not as easily impressed as some and not as skeptical as others. A God should know exactly what it would take.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> If the bush in my front yard burst into flames and said "Ambush, this is the lord thy god." I would pay attention.  Who wouldn't?
> 
> Let me ask you. If a burning talking bush told you that it was Vishnu the one true god would you believe it?



I think the God concept takes as little or as much as someone NEEDS. Some people see a cross on toast and are convinced God has sent them a sign and every thought that enters their head is God talking to them......others require much MUCH more.  As much as people think they see signs of a god in everyday life they overlook the signs that point to no god because they are convinced everything, good..bad and indifferent, are signs. I can admit the same goes for non believers. They are not looking for signs so they do not see them. I think both ways it is an individuals personal interpretation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 18, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I find it difficult to believe that someone who so strongly cleaves to the idea of there not being a God would then, when faced with something that is inexplicable with what little science they know or can be reasoned away, turn around and recant that belief. It’s the negative of, in older times, people using thunder and lightning as evidence proposing the existence of a Deity; much the same way a child will think that “bump” they heard in the night to be a monster lurking around in their closet. It would be like me saying “I can’t provide a logical explanation for *insert phenomenon here* so therefore there must be a God”, a statement, of which, is a cornerstone of the atheistic argument against God. So, no; it really, really wouldn’t.


How is it any different than this -


> I will gladly welcome it to the fold of the many other scientific wonders that govern life and the universe, and I will hold it as a marvelous blessing to know such a fact exists: to see it proven with my own eyes. However, until such proof exists, I will remain, respectfully, skeptical.


Sticking to ones preconceived notions about A/As in spite of the fact that you are being told something different straight from the A/As themselves, guarantees the only thing you will ever know is your preconceived notions.
If that's fine with you well ok. You wont be the only one on this forum.
If you want to learn something maybe you should slow your roll just a tad.
Did you notice that when you said you would accept evolution given the proper facts that not one A/A called you a liar?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Exactly.
> If I, ambush or you Hawg were genuine in asking God to reveal himself to us (which I am fairly positive that each of us have over the years) wouldn't God be capable of doing it in a way that is unique to each of us and in a way that is undeniable?
> I am not concerned with the people in here that think whether or not I am genuine because they are going by their own standards and are just hypocritically judgmental. Being a god...the God...God...would know  how to relate to me. For what I have asked it would be a small almost insignificant task compared to many other things a god gets credit for. For what I've given I think I have earned a response. I am not as easily impressed as some and not as skeptical as others. A God should know exactly what it would take.




Many testimonies involve a "***** in the heart".  I've felt that.....about many things.  

When I was honest with myself I realized that it wasn't coming from anywhere mystical.  It's just not enough.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Many testimonies involve a "***** in the heart".  I've felt that.....about many things.
> 
> When I was honest with myself I realized that it wasn't coming from anywhere mystical.  It's just not enough.



Clear, concise and with no room for interpretation leaving not a shred of doubt about the message and who it has come from. That is not too much to ask from any human let alone anything claiming to be a god.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 18, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I find it difficult to believe that someone who so strongly cleaves to the idea of there not being a God would then, when faced with something that is inexplicable with what little science they know or can be reasoned away, turn around and recant that belief. It’s the negative of, in older times, people using thunder and lightning as evidence proposing the existence of a Deity; much the same way a child will think that “bump” they heard in the night to be a monster lurking around in their closet. It would be like me saying “I can’t provide a logical explanation for *insert phenomenon here* so therefore there must be a God”, a statement, of which, is a cornerstone of the atheistic argument against God. So, no; it really, really wouldn’t.



Evergreen.....we are on the same "team" here.  Honestly, I'm glad you jumped in because you have a zeal that many have lost over many years of endlessly debating the same thing.  It is refreshing.

But.....

My point was summarized better by Walt.....



			
				Waltl1 said:
			
		

> If you want to learn something maybe you should slow your roll just a tad.
> Did you notice that when you said you would accept evolution given the proper facts that not one A/A called you a liar?



The thing with the talking donkey is simple......given the anatomical facts of a donkey's neck, it would be impossible for the animal to speak.  So, if the animal one day spoke, it would be perceived by all as as "miraculous."

That's all most of these guys want to see....a "smoking gun," if you will.  A talking donkey, given the current facts mentioned above, fits the bill.

Now, we debate what qualifies as "miraculous," and an interesting conversation appears, because we take the time to understand the opposing position, and some cool stuff is learned along the way.

I said it before, I do hope you stick around, I'm enjoying most of your posts so far for various reasons.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 19, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Or better yet, If God made himself known to Ambush, would he like the questions Ambush asked?  Or would it prompt another world wide flood?  WWFII if you will.




For instance, after establishing that he was actually talking to God, and that everything in the bible IS literally true, he might ask about Sodom and Gomorrah.  Why did you turn Lot's wife to a pillar of salt?  All she did was turn and look back.  Yeah, I know you told them not to, but really??  And what's up with the daughters?  How is that ok?  You did all this to supposedly set up the lineage that would lead to Jesus?  

And that is just one small example.  I just wonder if the Old Testament God would take over or if the kinder, gentler New Testament God would stay in control.

By the way Ambush, not picking on you.   I of course mean any of us that have questions.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> For instance, after establishing that he was actually talking to God, and that everything in the bible IS literally true, he might ask about Sodom and Gomorrah.  Why did you turn Lot's wife to a pillar of salt?  All she did was turn and look back.  Yeah, I know you told them not to, but really??  And what's up with the daughters?  How is that ok?  You did all this to supposedly set up the lineage that would lead to Jesus?
> 
> And that is just one small example.  I just wonder if the Old Testament God would take over or if the kinder, gentler New Testament God would stay in control.
> 
> By the way Ambush, not picking on you.   I of course mean any of us that have questions.



If he revealed himself to me in a talking burning bush I would be done with the questions.  What would be the point of questioning a being like that.  He would do whatever he wants to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.  If he wants to call it "love" who am I to question.  I suppose I would beg for mercy.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 20, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Ambush would believe if a donkey talked to him, most of these guys would.


Luke 16:31

I think that I would have been more convinced if my mother, being dead for some time, appeared and spoke to me...than a talking donkey.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Apr 20, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Luke 16:31
> 
> I think that I would have been more convinced if my mother, being dead for some time, appeared and spoke to me...than a talking donkey.



I, on the other hand, being a huge fan of the walking dead, would have to shoot her. I would choose the talking donkey. I may still shoot it, but it would be less creepy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 20, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Luke 16:31
> 
> I think that I would have been more convinced if my mother, being dead for some time, appeared and spoke to me...than a talking donkey.


The talking donkey is straight out of the Bible though. That would pretty well narrow down which god to attribute it to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 21, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> If he revealed himself to me in a talking burning bush I would be done with the questions.  What would be the point of questioning a being like that.  He would do whatever he wants to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.  If he wants to call it "love" who am I to question.  I suppose I would beg for mercy.



That's pretty much exactly what Job did and why he did it after God showed up.
He had all these questions for God.  God showed up and began to question Job.
Job in essence says " Now that you mention it God, who am I to question you?  Let me just shut my mouth and repent."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's pretty much exactly what Job did and why he did it after God showed up.
> He had all these questions for God.  God showed up and began to question Job.
> Job in essence says " Now that you mention it God, who am I to question you?  Let me just shut my mouth and repent."



We are all familiar with the man made stories....what is being said here is that we are looking for a personal God to be more personable. We are asking for an all knowledgeable God to know exactly what it would take to contact us in a way that we would know who it is. We are not in a position where we NEED some sort of sign so badly that anything un-god-like can be construed as a sign. 
Before we shut up and repent we are looking for the same chance to meet with a god that supposedly made regular visits in biblical times...then stopped and then stopped inspiring people to write about it.
Such a meeting would inspire me to tell you all about it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's pretty much exactly what Job did and why he did it after God showed up.
> He had all these questions for God.  God showed up and began to question Job.
> Job in essence says " Now that you mention it God, who am I to question you?  Let me just shut my mouth and repent."



Where's my great fish?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 21, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Where's my great fish?



Be  careful what you ask for Brother.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Be  careful what you ask for Brother.




Bring it.

I ain't talking metaphor.  I want a BIG fish.

No.... I need the talking burning bush.


----------

