What s the proof God exists?

Comments

Comments

• Where is that joke that you loved I answered with Darwin vs God or somtehing like that. ended with no get your own dirt!

  • Report
  

  by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on September 8th, 2009

• I remember that!
  .
  A group of scientists got together and decided man no longer needed God. So they picked one among them to tell Him that He could pack His bags.
  .
  The Scientist walked up to God and said: "God, we've decided we no longer need you. We're to the point where we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you get lost?"
  .
  God, listening patiently, said "Very well. How about this: Let's have a man-making contest." The scientist agreed.
  .
  God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
  .
  The scientist said "Sure, no problem!" and bent down to grab a handful of dirt.
  .
  God looked at him and said, "No, no, no...you get your OWN dirt!"

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on September 9th, 2009

• Still funny and to the point! lol

  • Report
  

  by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on September 9th, 2009

• Yes, it is!

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on September 9th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• That is if you start with the assumption that they were created.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on September 8th, 2009

• So speaketh Ray Comfort.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• jibberish

  • Report
  

  by to the SNAKE PIT! on September 8th, 2009

• if I walked you out to your car and said "wow look at what millions of years did to make that car" you would look at me and laugh because you know how incredibly intricate and purposefully designed that car is, that it has functions that are extremely complicated. however if we look at you or I or animals or plants or any other complex organism (this includes the simple cell that is not simple at all) you say it happened out of chance...thus I claim a designer, and since I claim a designer I also claim a creator simply for the knowledge of the beginning of time.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• That's because the only explanation for how a car is made is by being purposefully designed. We have a natural explanation for the Earth, life, etc., no need for magic.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• You look at a human or animal or plant and YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND how they came to be, so you make up an invisible man in the sky and say "he did it". That's no different than the ancient Greeks seeing lightning and attributing it to Zeus having a temper tantrum.

  • Report
  

  by RC loves ice cream on September 8th, 2009

• THE DIFFERENCES are 1 I understand evolution, and I see what is deemed as microevolution all around birds get larger and smaller beaks and wings and feathers but we never see the connecting dots from one species to another. secondly your answers of "lightning hitting amonia and making life" is more uncreditable than anything I say. it is a way of explaining what happened without any experimentation, and the experiment that was done was not wittnessed nor repeatable. science is testable observable and repeatable. none could be found...theirfore you have a belief on how life started.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• Firstly, if you understood evolution you wouldn't even mention microevolution or macroevolution, because in reality there is no difference apart from timescale. The only people who use those terms are creationists. Secondly, there are thousands of transitional fossils and you can find them all by simply doing a google search. Ignorance is not an excuse with the internet. Thirdly, no one has said "lightning hitting amonia[sic] and making life" except for you, and abiogenesis has been tested and shown to be a potentially viable hypothesis. Fourthly, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, which is just another thing that makes me think you don't know shit about evolution.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• microevolution is an evolution on species adaptation, and it was invinted by a russian scientist. but since evolutionists dont like that creationists use it they try to say their is no difference.
  transitional fossils (what are claimed as transitional fossils are usually just different adaptations of a certain animal.
  "the words POTENTIALLY VIABLE HYPOTHESIS" is the same thing as I believe this could be true. their is no difference than any other religion...I dont see it work but i believe it to work. that is a religion.
  4th) abiogenesis (my information was on proof (not prove) that GOD exists, and my statement was that creation shows proof, by its emense complexity and perfect order.)

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• Microevolution wasn't "invinted[sic]" by anyone, and yes, there is no difference between micro and macro apart from timescale. If there was a difference, there would have to be two strands of DNA, one that allowed microevolution, and one that disallowed macroevolution. There's only one, though. Pity.
  "what are claimed as transitional fossils are usually just different adaptations of a certain animal." Yes, that's exactly what a transitional fossil is. Great work. These different adaptations are how we know one species came from another species.
  "Potentially viable hypothesis" means that it could be true, it looks like it's true, but we need to do more testing to prove it. Abiogenesis is a very hard thing to test for, and that's why there is no Theory of Abiogenesis like there is for evolution.
  My statement is that "creation" shouldn't make you think "God is teh realz" because there is a natural explanation for it. It doesn't have to be created.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• Who downrates becuase of opinions? Come on people!++

  • Report
  

  by Sunny365 on September 8th, 2009

• thanks sunny, agreed, but whatever. it was my opinion and its worth what I think just as much as what they think.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• so back to talimze. so now that we have established that I have a science understanding. lets get back to the answer at hand.
  it is true that most have not defined micro vs macroevolution. but their are some strong divider lines. number of chromosone pairs in DNA and RNA, DNA and RNA distinction. warm blooded cold blooded. egg laying non egg laying, feathers, skin, scales, fins. these CAN be and may not be divider lines. (science to understand fact) and i said may or may not be. its a theory.
  the part that hinders me from "believing" evolution, is this, (next)

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• that I see an elephant. I see african and asian elephants, we know that wooly mammoths existed and their are probably a few more adaptations that you could see in the past(however long that was) but it seems that the tree (backwards) ends.
  or the horse, mule, zebra, donkey, even such as the mesohyppus and the hyracotherium and (in the smithsonian) I saw a horse with horns (two no unicorns yet...) but these are all still horses (i believe again in adaptation (microevolution) and they can get bigger and smaller and change coat color and gain longer hair and shorter hair but their still a horse. this is where I see the difference.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• thus I see many tree lines but I dont see the trees joining (proverbial tree)

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• your welcome:)

  • Report
  

  by Sunny365 on September 8th, 2009

• You keep boasting about having a scientific understanding of evolution, but I'm honestly not seeing it. If you did, you would be able to see the tree of life in it's full form. That's why those transitional species (the ones you say weren't really transitional species) are so important. For instance, through transitional species, we can trace the development of the human hand, aquatic mammals, and platypus venom. That's all through transitional species. We can see how they formed, and this does create a branching tree. If you don't see it then, I'm sorry, but you don't have a scientific understanding of evolution. So far, everything you've said seems to have come straight from the Answers in Genesis website. I'm not accusing you of anything, but what you've said so far is pretty much the same thing the US's leading creationist organization says, and they definitely don't have a scientific understanding of evolution. They just go by the Bible.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• their is no doubt that I like their group though I do have some problems with their understandings. but the statement of just because I dont see the rest of the tree has nothing to do with if I understand evolution it has to do with if I agree with evolution. thats different. you may or may not know the bible that has nothing to do with if you believe in it fully partially or not at all. you may know every battle that happened in the bible but you may say only two battles have scientific proof (anthropological proof) thus I believe those but no others... you still know the bible but just dont agree with it.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• I understand evolution to the point that is a formidable understanding. until I was 19 when I choose to be a creationist. let me ask you how many creation classes have you taken, because I had evolution all through school.
  so to those missing links (and back to subject) the "missing links, or transitional spices links" are very rare and are an extreme small amount of bone, that is interpreted in a certain light. it is not the only explanation of such thing... now even (if) evolution is not true that does not make creationism true, and I know that, thus I am not an antievolutionist (as most creationst are and have no clue of creation experiments).

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• so just because I disagree with your interpretations does not mean that I am stupid to science, most of the science that you know and believe I know and believe but when it comes to historical sciences we seem to differ a great deal.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• Based on your answer ("all of creation gives proof that their is a creator.") it would seem that you do believe creationism to be true with a lack of evidence. That's your primary problem. I mean, if I said "All life gives proof that evolution is true," I know you would call me on my bullshit, because that's exactly what it is. Bullshit.
  Your second problem is that you are just simply discounting transitional forms as rare. They definitely aren't rare. We've found thousands of them, enough to trace back the developments of many modern animal and plant traits. The fact that they have all fit our expectations and have produced the same conclusion in all fields of biology is not a coincidence. Sorry, you just can't ignore all of that. Well, you can, but you can't, at the same time, boast an understanding of evolution.
  You might not be completely ignorant of science, but what you do know is either coming coated in misinformation, or you are just distorting reality to match your beliefs.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• ok heres some evidence "a testable science experiment" ready?
  Take the geologic table:
  we will do two experiments in the next two paragraphs:
  1 yours
  2 mine
  (next)

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• 1) yours
  if animals live and die and more dirt from other places is put on them and more die and some fallinto tar pits and some debree from space falls on it and more animals and plants die and so on and so forth and the animals change (evolution) then we will find fossils of the majority of the animals and few fossils of the sudden changes of the "inbetween species" thus the geologic table is based on time earliest near bottom and most recent at top, and the layers inbetween are when that animal lived approximately.
  .
  so we can do that experiment and see that this could easily happen and I agree with it could be possible.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• 2) mine
  if you take all the types of animals and plants in the world at the same time (just humor me) wombats dinosaurs fish whales birds humans mammals ferns trees grasses all that have "ever existed" and take them and put them into a gigantic pool (2 miles x 2 miles)(just an example not a little pool) that you slosh back and forth and you put lots of different rocks and debree and dirts and sands etc. and you let it rain for 40 days and nights "hard rain" not mist, and you keep it shaking and sloshing (technical terms slosh) and then you let it dry for the next year, completely dry out. what will happen.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• You tell me. Where are you going with this? You're not going to discount stratification too, are you?

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• answer: you will get layers of dirt and sand and rocks all based on one thing DENSITY, and between those layers you will get one thing animal bones and carcasas difused in the rocks and dirt all based on one thing DENSITY, thus the molusks and oysters and such will be on the bottom with the fish next and "dinosaurs" and reptiles and amphibians, and then the mammals and birds last. the best thing is that their will be a conglomeration of them throughout the layers but the majority of them will be in the most known layers, why because they are based on DENSITY.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• and thus why I "believe, (historical science)"that the GEOLOGIC TABLE is based on DENSITY. thats why we still see some birds in the "jurasic and triassic" areas of dirt and so forth.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• woo hold on i wasnt done yet.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• and I cannot discount i can only give another interpretation...see thats the problem is historical sciences think that they have fact and they only have strong theories,,,and thats ok where as gravity or chemistry with chemical change is a fact...

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• ps if you can discredit this theory you pretty much have creationists by the ballzzz.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• I think all methods of radiometric dating discredit the theory. It's pretty clears that stratification, at the most basic level (that's just with horizontal strata), is old on the bottom, young on the top. If you date them, the fossils found in the strata are "organized," so to speak, by age, not by density. How does your baseless idea account for that?

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• so thanks for putting me down. through this whole thing I have said that you are creditable I just dont agree, and that your science is scientific but I dont agree and I have shown why, Im sure we could go on about the what ifs for a long time and I will but stop saying that my ideas are stupid (baseless) and yours are right.
  now lets get to that question.(next)

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• ok
  carbon dating
  radio argon dating
  etc. are all based on assumptions.
  heres why. we have known that if you take a radioactive particle it will decay at a certain amount per time, and another certain amount at another time, it is called a decay curve. we see that in different radioactive particles, that are able to decay in up to 150 years, (thats how long we have been able to witness radiation) so anything farther is a "GOOD THEORY" but it is still a surmise, if it is here yesterday and it is here 10 days before that and it is here 50 days before that then it must have been here (plotted backwards) at this time 1000 years ago.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• Most radiometric dating isn't very precise, but for the timescales we're talking about it's more than a good guess. It still discredits your idea about density = stratification.
  So, I guess that means I've got your balls now. What will you do to get them back?

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• second problem is
  any substance that was living before and is dated with carbon dating must be reexamined recently because of "slime" build up. their is a microrganism that creates a coat of mucus (crap) around the prior living object (baskets made from grasses to animal bones (not petrified) to cotton etc.) and thus all the other dates that we put on things before (i believe 1995) could be wrong or need some change in dating and thus the other objects that were dated from the carbon dating of these objects were also mis dated.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• 3rd
  we are assuming that when the radioactive particles started their lifecycle they were at full charge and not at an expended charge
  like already millions of half lives used up.
  assumption: it may or may not have been but we assume this and it must be factored in.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• Composite materials are not uncommon, but a geochemist would notice a composite and be able to account for it. But it doesn't matter, because carbon dating is only one of several kinds of dating.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• As for that "assumption," that is one of the reasons radiometric dating is not very precise. Still, it is factored in. You think a scientist would overlook something like that?

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• when we date something with radioactivity we get a "range" where some tells us that it is just a few years old and some tell us its billions of years old but the majority says X number and thus we take X as the fact... it may not be it is just the majority of said thing.
  ex. YEARS OLD 2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,11,11,29,29,50,50,50,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,55,60,60,68,69,75,80,85,85,90,95,95,95,100,111,111,111,180,200,202,300,400,800,

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• now what is the year in carbon dating it would be the 55 but it would also be around 75 if you add up and divide instead of taking the most majority of numbers, this is how it works... even though it says it is 2 years old and 800 years old we take the surmise (not that it is not bad) its just not absolute its a jist.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• I think that they prebelieve what they were taught and may certainly bias something.

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• Different dating methods might produce different results, but if two groups date one object with the same method, they should get close to the same results. If not, a mistake has been made. Creationists like to latch on to mistakes like that and claim that the mistake was being sold as truth when actually it was corrected.
  Scientists, definitely expect certain results (that's what a hypothesis is), but I'm certain there is not as much bias as AiG is telling you.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• now I have given you many reasonings that give radiometric dating discredits, it doesn't mean their wrong it means that your statement of "I think all methods of radiometric dating discredit the theory. " now is underminded as "well mabey that is not perfect...

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• I know radiometric dating is not perfect, but it's still effective enough for me to discredit your bullshit, and to support the actual cause of stratification. Besides, it's the best I can do without actually acquiring a bunch of fossils and comparing the density.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• their is nothing wrong with you believing your thoughts and the thoughts of most of the scientific communtiy, however it is the point that I am making that SCIENTIFICALLY (testable observable and retestable) EVIDENCE (not fact) is theorized and has a second way of looking at things(the way things came to be) and since I (creationism) has come up with a thoretically viable response, then it should be accredited for the "theory" it is. if we could not explain situations then sure it should be reevaluated but we can...it doesn't mean their right it means their plausable and as you noted above.
  "Potentially viable hypothesis" means that it could be true, it looks like it's true, but we need to do more testing to prove it"

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 8th, 2009

• I can understand you looking at scientific evidence and coming to a somewhat different conclusion, but you would need to do a lot of twisting in order to get from the scientific evidence to "God did it all." You haven't outlined how you've come to that conclusion, and there's just a big gap between the evidence and God. In order for your "theory" to actually be a theory, it would need to be tested several times by several different groups and they would all have to come to the same conclusion, that creationism is right.
  Do that and get back to me. Until then, evolution is still beating creationism into the dirt. I understand that you don't like it, but that's just the way it is.

  • Report
  

  by Tamilze on September 8th, 2009

• thats fine and I have had to retort your beliefs for this argument, but many groups do come to the same conclussion so we are on the right track, the question is where is your base of science come from, did you prior (when you just got into science say)
  1 the world is millions of years old
  2 the world is thousands of years old.
  no matter what you started with you will bias yourself imeadiately...

  • Report
  

  by guardian on September 9th, 2009

Comments

• so , coke is better than pepsi , cause coke said so ???

  • Report
  

  by The Anonymous Witch on September 8th, 2009

• The bible is true? Give me a source please.

  • Report
  

  by randomness - is now a Maestro on September 8th, 2009

• LMFAO!

  • Report
  

  by ZiggyStardust on September 8th, 2009

• check out my other answer for a question like this .
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7674313

  • Report
  

  by The Anonymous Witch on September 8th, 2009

• Lol :)
  Because the bible says so?
  Right. Who do you think wrote it?

  • Report
  

  by Bloed... on stand-by on September 8th, 2009

• I bet this is a joke. You can't seriously say something like that.

  • Report
  

  by vivier on September 10th, 2009

• I don't know, some people really are that stupid.

  • Report
  

  by ZiggyStardust on September 10th, 2009

• help ,,, 3 against 1 here http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1688817

  • Report
  

  by The Anonymous Witch on September 10th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Ahhh the cowardly little trols are out and about! they like to DR but not say a word...they do their little deed and leave! Cowards that they are!

  • Report
  

  by Thinker on September 8th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Read my Answer and COMMENTS to the like question and tell me your opinion ;-)
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7619102

  • Report
  

  by Mariam on September 8th, 2009

• Good, i got a DR because you didn't click on the link!!!!!
  I am sure that if you have clicked, you would have said "I bare witness there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed (pbuh) is his prophet"

  • Report
  

  by Mariam on September 8th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• ok why do I have to be downrated. I hate people who have no nuts. God gave you them too...or lack of them!

  • Report
  

  by hottkoko on September 8th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments