Ok atheists, here's my proof?

Question

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=646&mode=&order=0&thold=0

You ask for proof of God, or why the bible is not fairy tales. This is one of the things that led me on a path to God. I hate posters who put whole articles in their post.

Click the link above and read the WHOLE article, it's not that long. Then post comments if you wish.

This is not a flame, just something for you to weigh and consider.

Peace

My response to some posts:
1) This is not a scientific website. It is a biblical research website. If you choose not to go to the links they provide, that's up to you.
2) They say specifically that this knowledge was not "generally" known at that time. Maybe some other civilization DID know it, but it was not known by the men who wrote these words. And for those who said farmers probably did, where is your proof? And do you really think anyone knew about springs in the bottom of the ocean before we explored it with subs? If so, document it here, please.
3) As to natural selection... who is this God you have that "selects" things. That whole line of "thought" is an oxymoron. Natural selection "selects"... how can you believe an inanimate, or concept, object DOES anything. THAT is illogical.
4) I think secular science has speciation wrong. They make a definition, change it, redefine it again, and then all applaud. Terrific. Congratulations!

Oh yeah, I forgot... the bbile does NOT say the world is flat.
Your confusing the bible with religion.
Religion, especially LARGE religions, have been a dangerous thing and hindered human kind. God has become, on more than one occassion, become furious with His own people for their lunacy. I don't know why he puts up with any of us, frankly.
Go in peace, I am not your enemy.

Answer 1

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "I hate quotations. Tell me what YOU know."

And yes, I see the irony in quoting this quote.

Answer 2

U won't change people's minds even with the best evidence, if it's their long cherished belief. What many of these answerers fail to realize is that they put faith in a theory that's never been proved. Why are primates still on the earth if they evolved into man and why is there such a major difference between man and the animal world. I think most failed to read this part also:

The Troubled Waters of Evolution shows that the theory of evolution, which suggests that “random” processes have led to complex organisms, violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that things naturally go from a state of order to disorder. [18] This is why things that work, break, rather than broken things fixing themselves, and why we humans are always cleaning and straightening. Any mom will testify that things do not get orderly on their own.

It was religion from the dark ages that fought the new discoveries of science, not the bible itself. Many bibles were burned when they were printed in the common languages. However, until people can reason together, this argument will continue to go on until a major event that wipes out all doubt for either side.

Answer 3

Dead link.

EDIT:Creationist rhetoric, devoid of actual substance.

1. Evolution is not unplanned and random changes. Mutations are random, but this merely generates the variation from which Natural Selection selects the trait which survives best in the current environment.

2. ICR and AiG are hardly reputable. They both have public statements of faith (major faux pas for Science) and their articles are lined with inaccuracies.

3. The fact that most creationists write books instead of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers speaks volumes about the substance within those books.

4. Evolutionary Theory has been proven to Scientific standards, applying Epistemological standards only leads to Universal Skepticism, which is a ridiculous scale to use.

5. Evolutionary Theory is both Theory and fact, depending on the areas one considered within the Theory of Evolution (ToE).

6. What's really funny is this: Around two years ago "Macroevolution" was defined to include species and speciation was vigorously rejected. After a committe meeting of Creationists, they "revised" their definition to include Speciation (probably because they could no longer deny Speciation events without looking foolish). All they are doing is moving the goal posts until examples of Evolutionary change require so much time that they cannot be efficiently documented (some Genus events have been documented, but not many due to the times involved).

Really, if they could actually explain why a Speciation event can occur, but a Genus separation event cannot develop over multiple speciation events... they might gain some slight credibility. Of course, they never really have an answer for that, now do they?

7. Doesn't even look like they understand the meaning of "speciation" if they think "blacker dogs and whiter dogs" is an accurate characterization of Species change. EDIT: Nope, they don't know the meaning at all, since they think "speciation" doesn't mean the development of a new species...

I'm gonna stop here, because it's getting way too long and pathetic to read.

EDIT EDIT: Creationism and "Intelligent Design" are largely US and Turkish (READ: Fundamentalist) phenomenas...

Anywhere else in the world and these people would be considered loons.

EDIT X 3:

"who is this God you have that "selects" things. That whole line of "thought" is an oxymoron. Natural selection "selects"... how can you believe an inanimate, or concept, object DOES anything. THAT is illogical."

Talk about assumptions. No god or agent cause is required to "select" traits in Nature. "Selection" merely refers to the phenomena that those within a population with traits that work best with the environment they're in will survive and (if the traits have a genetic influence) pass on their genes/traits to their progeny.

Way to quibble with a phrasing of the english language, rather than deal with the actual point. This is the kind of rhetoric that makes you lose credibility.

"4) I think secular science has speciation wrong. They make a definition, change it, redefine it again, and then all applaud. Terrific. Congratulations!"

The definition of speciation has never changed from my research in Science history. It has always referred to the development/separation of populations into two or more new species.

So I have no idea what you're talking about here. Maybe you mean the definition of "Species"? Funny thing about that is the difficulty of placing an exact definition of species is clear evidence of Evolutionary Theory, since one of the psotulates would be the flowing, changing nature of species.

The only people who have been changing positions on Speciation have been the Creationists.

Answer 4

I agree with the first answer, sorry. See, the problem is that the religious read things like this, and they never check the facts, the names involved... like the first book mentioned, "The Fossils Say No," by Duane Gish. The article insists that there are books written by reputable scientists, yet Mr Gish is far from "reputable" in his field.

A quote about his reputation -

"Richard Trott wrote an article rebutting many of the arguments Duane Gish made during a presentation at Rutgers University in 1994.[2] Trott wrote that "if Gish is one of the world's leading experts" on creation science then "evolutionary scientists have nothing to fear from [creation] science."

Furthermore, the list there at the end of people such as Isaac Newton contains 8 people, and of those 8, 7 died before the Origin of the Species was published.

Third, one simple problem in the creation story - on the third day, the earth and the plants which need sunlight are created. The sun, moon, and stars are not created until the fourth, meaning that the plants did not have their sunlight and also meaning that the Bible says the stars are YOUNGER than the earth, which scientifically speaking is ludicrous.

Answer 5

The article starts out with a strawman argument -- not a good start if you ask me. Evolution is not "one of the chief arguments against the Bible", it's one of the chief arguments against the idea creation as described in the Bible. It doesn't address anything beyond the first few chapters of Genesis. I'm not even going to bother addressing the claims made about evolution. Just google for the talk.origins FAQ.

The rest of the claims seem mostly conjecture. Are we sure the ancients didn't know about the hydrological system or circular weather patterns? Just because they didn't drive around in cars or drink Starbucks coffee while chatting on their laptops doesn't mean they were idiots. We've found a mechanical calculator dating back to the first century BC which calculates the positions of planets...who know what other wonders of science were lost when the Library of Alexandria and other storehouses of knowledge burned. Again, others have addressed these particular claims much better than I could, so I'm just going to have to tell you to Google around and see the particular counter-claims made to these points.

Still, even if the individual claims of this article were 100% true, that the writers of the Bible understood the hydrological cycle when NOBODY ELSE around them did, and that they knew about ocean currents and springs and all of that, none of that proves that any other rest of the Bible is correct, especially the supernatural claims involving gods and miracles. You can't just point to a sentence that says "it's dark at night" and claim that everything else the book says is true.

Answer 6

because of the fact i'm individual who was a christian and ought to now not discover historic information of Jesus' existence, i'm going to play (i'm pagan btw and not an atheist)... no person is leaping up and down here, kiddo. in actuality, we are all waiting to be sure the documentary.. maximum human beings think of at maximum suitable, it's going to enhance some reliable questions, yet there is not any thank you to be sure for specific who that's.. and that's what i'm listening to from maximum atheists. those atheists who do have faith the Jesus in all probability existed are contained in maximum of the folk, btw. For me, it might a minimum of provide some information that he became a actual individual.. it unquestionably would not make me have faith in his deity, surprisingly because of the fact the bible claims he resurrected intact after 3 days and that there became no physique to hit upon.. and that he became buried in a borrowed tomb.

Answer 7

That's opinion, not proof.

The Great people it shows were all born before the 1900's Science has made quite a few advancements since then.

Darwin, Charles Robert 1809—82
radiocarbon dating was discovered by Willard Frank Libby and his colleagues in 1949

Please check out the link below

Answer 8

Believe It Or Not !

Chapter 1 of Genesis is about Creationism ... Something from Nothing. Chapter 2 of Genesis is about Evolution ... Something from Something. The Bible is mostly symbolic, not literal, but read for yourself. It is the word of man who thought the world was flat and had a God for everything, especially one who had power over death.

How long were the days of Creation? If you believe in God, each day was a blink of the eye, a flash, a Big Bang and it is still going on today!

Answer 9

Interesting article, indeed.

I don't actually believe that ancient man, who survived off the land, knew nothing about the clouds, the winds or nature in general. No one can convince me that ancient farmers were ignorant of these things.

I realize that many scientists today believe in creation. Most of the examples of scientific minds you mentioned lived up to 500 years ago, when practically everyone believed in God and creation.

To me this is not proof, it's just more opinion. If you believe it to be proof, and it serves your purposes, that's fine. But try to remember that not all athiests believe in evolution. One can disbelieve in both creation AND evolution; it doesn't have to be a choice between the two.

Answer 10

I have to say, that's a lot of interpretation - and the fact that they got quite a bit of science wrong along the way doesn't help.

But let's say for a minute that I buy it - the Bible predicted a lot of modern science. What's next? Does the Bible contain information on a grand unifying theory of physics? How about a cure for cancer? AIDS? How to make a better microprocessor? No? But what if we discover those things, and then someone goes back and uses a loose interpretation of the bible to say it actually predicted it?

It's like psychic readings - you can interpret them to mean anything you want. Something about 'water' can mean the ocean, or maybe the beach, or 'riverside drive' in montana, or maybe some sort of bird - after the fact, you can make it whatever you want it to mean. Until the Bible predicts science, I won't buy the argument.

Answer 11

One simple way to address the existence of God is by defining what God is or represents. Is He a Universal God or a personal God, looking into our lives and making decisions about everyone's behaviour and destiny?

To me, the latter is obviously a very childish, primitive and dangerous way of defining God.We are such an infinitesimal fraction of the Universe, it is ludricrous to imagine that even God would be concentrated in the daily human affairs of this world. If he is, certainly the consequences of his will have been disastrous.
To deny Evolution, a central issue in this discussion, is to deny what reality has shown us, again and again. We share 99.9% of our 3 billion genes with the monkeys.Evolution is the greatest threat to the concept of Creation. The truth about evolution is slapping us in the face.Creationists have to offer absolutely nothing to support their beliefs and are extremely demanding when confronting evolutionary concepts. Their position is actually ridiculous.
It is very easy, rational and simple to "imagine" a form of primordial universal energy, unexplainable by our conscience, which resulted in this universe.
Let's call it God. Nobody can argue against that.
With this concept in mind, we all would enjoy peace and friendship, and we would enjoy a better world. Nobody would have to be preaching their own beliefs to others, there would be no discrimination or hatred as we see today.