Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Godscreated]

---

The burden of proof belongs to you, you say you do not have to disprove something you do not believe exist, but you will dodge the same responsibility you place upon me. Double standards do not fly with me, so get busy showing me the geologic column exist the same world wide and that no fossils are found out of place or stop your whining.

---

Positive claims entail the burden of proof, and "the geologic column does not exist," is a positive claim. Are you seriously telling me you've been here for as long as you have and you don't understand such a basic concept of argumentation?

You mean to tell me that when I say you've made a positive claim, as it has been done here many times, God doesn't exist, that doesn't count. The burden of proof is your's and your's alone. That's the reply I get and it's the one I'm stating to you. Live with it or change how you deal with the existence of God.

It's your belief and the responsibility falls upon you to prove what you say, by the way that is quite common knowledge, to those who search.

My responsibility is to demonstrate evolution, not to prove your claims about fossils and layers wrong. Come on, man; what's with this desperate scrabbling?

Dodging, dodging, dodging, you going to prove evolution or just run in circles. I'm not the one who's desperate man, it's not on me to prove anything about evolution that's your burden. You think you can throw around a few choice words and back out, not hardly.

---

I do not see why those sediments couldn't of occurred either before or after the flood. I'm not familiar with that particular place, what I do know about floods of great enormity they do not lay down equal layers of sediment and the strip other areas clean so there is little to no sediment.

---

The layers in question go back too far, with uninterrupted periods that preclude flood conditions, to allow for a flood with humans involved.

How is it those wind blown sediments could be dated properly, not saying they were not, asking a question?

This better for you, the fossil record doesn't even suggest evolution.

Yes, it does.

I'm still waiting for proof, I know, I used the word suggest but this thing has been about proving, ball still in your court.

If you put together all my statements you would notice that I deny each of your points, seems to me I was taking in all you presented. Evolution has never and never will be proven, why do you wish to go against many of the leading evolutionary scientist that have stated it's not be proven. They're part of your bunch why do you not know this.

Probably because you're pulling it out of your ass? If you have the quotes I'll happily look at them, but what you can't do is make these assertions and then get all evasive when you're asked to point me in the right direction. It makes it seem as though you're hiding something.

Not hardly, I do not have the papers anymore, have wished a hundred times I hadn't gotten rid of them. I'm hiding nothing, let me say this as best I can, an evolutionary scientist said that he could not ever quit believing in evolution because there would be nothing left for him but God, he said evolution hasn't and can't be proven, but is in it's self a belief. Now those are not his exact words but I did portray accurately what he said. Esq, I have no reason to lie but it's only you who will believe or not, I know what I know.

Far more than any 200, I don't even know where you got that number.

The TalkOrigins index; can you point me to a source you're using for the number?

Unfortunately I can't, like I said above I no longer have all the material I once did, if I knew I would have found myself on a site like this I would have kept those things. I'll see if I can find that source, it could take sometime though.

It's like this, you call fossils in the wrong layers for evolutionary science insignificant, does that mean you are fine with dismissing things that do not add up to keep alive this delusional fantasy. When fossils that are millions of years different from the other fossils and locked into the same so called geologic strata insignificant, I mean really, whats up with that.

I'm not dismissing anything, there was a quite obvious explanation contained within the link I provided. But my larger point was that the number of fossils out of order are dwarfed by the number of fossils in order: if you're going to use the former as evidence, I'm equally allowed to use the latter. You're ignoring this point because your own argument is much stronger evidence for my position than it is for yours, unless you're special pleading.

This order of numbers seem to bring a question to mind, wouldn't you agree 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,3,8,9,10. So do those fossils, 1 number out of place and a fossil out of place by millions of years according to the geologic column.

Are you just dismissing all the other fossils?

No I'm not and I don't dismiss them, they are there and that's an undeniable fact, the greater question might be dating.

---

There is no proof, how many times am I going to have to say this. Natural selection is not evolution and has never been shown to lead to a change from one animal to another.

---

You assert there is no proof, but your baseless dismissals aren't an argument. If we're going to do that, I could just say evolution is a fact and that's that; it's childish.

That's exactly what you've done, I haven't seen any proof, just a couple examples that do not mean much. Like I said I could if I had my papers, I really regret giving them up. Besides I can as the atheist here do, assert. what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As to your other sentence, you don't get to redefine what evolution is and then say that because your strawman isn't real, actual evolution isn't real. Here is what evolution actually is.

I know what evolution is, I've seen it go from macro to micro, by the way there are evolutionary scientist that still believe it's only macro. You can dodge all you want to but there isn't nor will there ever be proof of animals changing into different animals.

---

I did not say it was a conspiracy against me, I said it was the only way evolutionary science could keep evolution alive after Christian scientist pinned down evolutionary scientist on macro evolution.

---

And do you understand that both of those points- the species one and the macro-evolution one- are factually incorrect due to the timing? The former predates evolution entirely, and the latter was a distinction that gradually fell out of favor and does not describe what you claim it describes?

Like I said above there are evolutionary scientist that promote macro and even at a faster rate than previously assumed. Macro was challenged by Christian scientist and if evolutionary science had not changed we would probably be done with it today.

Evolution was being presented before then and so were long ages and yes my answer was to evolution, you made that very clear.

So, you're saying that evolutionary theory existed before evolutionary theory was proposed?

The idea of evolution was purposed long ago.

I used species in my reply for your benefit, and they are still frogs, they will always be frogs. They will not evolve into another kind of animal. For evolution to be realistic some animals will have to become totally different ones, that has never been demonstrated, proven or otherwise.

Look, you can either discuss what evolution actually is, or you can make up your fantasies about it, but you can't expect me to go along with the latter, if that's what you want to do.

Oh, so it's okay for you to dismiss God without proof, you have never discussed God from what the Bible says and you apply your own interpretations to it to satisfy your justifications. Now you want to accuse me of doing the same thing you've done over and over. You have always expected me to go along with your ideas about Christianity. You need to get honest here or just quit, I'm getting the impression you're looking for an out anyway.

---

If evolution was real why do we still have the so called living fossils and all other life forms have evolved into different animals, heck they haven't even changed.

---

Ah, now this is an interesting question, and living fossils are rad. However, you're still a little wrong here: living fossils do change, it's just that their basic morphology has not needed to change for an extended period of time, either due to a lack of predation or an ideal environment, that sort of thing. Nothing exists that would naturally select for a different morphology, and so in essence they remain the same. This process is called evolutionary stasis, but if you say they haven't changed at all, you're overstressing your case.

I wouldn't say they haven't changed through natural selection, that would be stupid, however some haven't changed in size, bone structure, scale or skin patterns. Of coarse that's about all that will show up in fossils.

I'm keeping track, and I've yet to see the first bit of proof from you that evolution has ever occurred, not natural selection, a change of one animal into a totally different one.

Again, I'm not required to prove the wrong definition of evolution. I'm required to prove the right definition of evolution, and I did that in my first post.

You haven't given proof of any definition of evolution, except too skate around your assertions with natural selection and very little else. Natural selection is a given and through it no change from one animal to another has ever been observed. If you are denying that evolution doesn't bring about that type of change, then I guess were talking about extinction and all the animals that are present today were always present, of coarse long ages would still be a problem.

GC