Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audacity you have not heard me use talking points from Christian ministries that oppose evolution. I have not even brought creationism into it. I am dealing with evolution on its own merits and I have not brought creationism into it. But I could bring creationism into it but I don't have to. I can deal with evolution with or without creationism. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist.

Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

I noticed all of the debating back af forth between Christians and atheists about evolution and imo neither side gave any real evidence and it came down to who the person believed so I wanted to look into it myself to try to find evidence life evolves because I never saw any real evidence given that was convincing and I am an evidence based person and I try to remove my bias as much as possible when I research something and I try to find evidence to decide if I can accept it or not.

It took awhile and I think at first I was looking in the wrong places but eventually I found sound arguments against evolution that were not based on creationism and once I looked into their claims and verified the problems with evolution science I knew they were right and there was not enough evidence to accept evolution.

Now to be fair I have read Christian ministry web-sights about why they reject evolution but imo they are actually weaker reasons to reject evolution.There is one book though written by a Gap Theorist that is one of the best books I have ever read about why evolution is a myth and I use some of it,however it is not well known about like most creation ministries are. But also I discovered Gap Creationism and eventually came to realize that it was more believable based on the evidence,so I accepted it for my creation theory and left YEC.

Doesn't the Gap theory contradict what is written in the Bible?

Ken

Not to me because evidence in nature that makes it more believable than evolution.It is more believable of a theory based on the evidence even if you think it contradicts what is written in the bible.I'm not getting into it in this thread though.

But if you are a Christian, just because you find it more credible than evolution doesn't mean it doesn't contradict the bible though.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.


And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

That's absolutely false Neo. I've told you, at least, two times that Hugh Ross' book More Than a Theory, does posit predictions and is open to corrections.

I think you really need to read the book, so you'll stop making these false assertions.

On the contrary, I did read it, and Ross' so called predictions are scientific and geological facts that he states would be found in his model, which is talking in circles. And when he doesn't do that he makes non-specific predictions, vague to the point that you can change them to fit anything and refilter it. I was quite disappointed by Ross' predictions. He fits evidence into the theory, working his way backwards.

I mean he is a scientist. If his predictions are correct, why not push them to peer review? But I think I know the reason they won't hold up. And that is why I call it belief and not science.

Here is the list of his predictions:
1. transcendent creation event
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of the earth’s, solar system’s, and Milky Way Galaxy’s characteristics
4. rapidity of life’s origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of “transitional forms” in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. recovery from mass extinctions
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity
18. huge biodeposits
19. Genesis’ perfect fit with the fossil record
20. molecular clock rates

Just take #20...really he/his model predicted that?
No, he just states all these things and then claims his model predicts that, but sadly science does that.

Take #3
That's the anthropic statement, it's not even a prediction.

Most of the items on this list is common knowledge.
What horrifies me is his obsession to fit Genesis with every scientific fact we know, and that ends in either the Bible being distorted or the correlation being silly.

I'm afraid, I'm not making false assertions, Rick. You would know given my history on this topic and my love of science, if Ross's statements had been actual prediction based on a model, I would have had no trouble accepting it. But they're not really what he says they are and I am not sure how one can accept that.

I call it belief and I respect if you call it that. I have no qualms about it. After all, I believe in God creating things but not the way we think when reading genesis. But if it is being passed on as science, then I would expect some science behind it. But in truth Ross' motivation is to fix the bible in science or vice versa. I think this attitude is misguided to some extent and it starts to look ugly very soon if continued.

Tl;Dr Ross's predictions failed to impress me. I find them misleading, vague and non-specific. In short, not scientific predictions at all.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audacity wrote:
Well, this is a refreshing approach. But I'm curious as to what prompted you to look so deeply into evolution. Normally, people don't go to the lengths you must have gone without good reason.

I noticed all of the debating back af forth between Christians and atheists about evolution and imo neither side gave any real evidence and it came down to who the person believed so I wanted to look into it myself to try to find evidence life evolves because I never saw any real evidence given that was convincing and I am an evidence based person and I try to remove my bias as much as possible when I research something and I try to find evidence to decide if I can accept it or not.

It took awhile and I think at first I was looking in the wrong places but eventually I found sound arguments against evolution that were not based on creationism and once I looked into their claims and verified the problems with evolution science I knew they were right and there was not enough evidence to accept evolution.

Now to be fair I have read Christian ministry web-sights about why they reject evolution but imo they are actually weaker reasons to reject evolution.There is one book though written by a Gap Theorist that is one of the best books I have ever read about why evolution is a myth and I use some of it,however it is not well known about like most creation ministries are. But also I discovered Gap Creationism and eventually came to realize that it was more believable based on the evidence,so I accepted it for my creation theory and left YEC.

Doesn't the Gap theory contradict what is written in the Bible?

Ken

Not to me because evidence in nature that makes it more believable than evolution.It is more believable of a theory based on the evidence even if you think it contradicts what is written in the bible.I'm not getting into it in this thread though.

But if you are a Christian, just because you find it more credible than evolution doesn't mean it doesn't contradict the bible though.

Ken

I know but I don't think it contradicts the bible and when I see a biblical interpretation that lines up with what nature reveals it means it has evidence behind it and that is why I accept it. It is not blind faith where we just have a biblical interpretation,we actually have the evidence in the earth verifying this interpretation if you don't look at the evidence from an evolution view point like most people and even Christian ministries do. Popularity does not matter to me at all I'll take evidence and substance anyday over popularity or majority opinion,especially when the majority has been wrong so many times throughout history whether they believed in God or not. And in Christianity there were terrible interpretations that were believed by the majority and yet were eventually shown to be wrong. Gap Creationism may not be as popular as it once was,,at one time it was the majority view but it lost popularity to new creation theories like YEC that became popular.

Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

Well my point was not so much about debates but was more about trying to point out how smart Hugh Ross is when it comes to science. I mean even if you disagree with Ross,you can tell when he debated Victor Stenger that he was debating on a science level and could call Victor Stenger on his non-peer reviewed scientific views.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

Well my point was not so much about debates but was more about trying to point out how smart Hugh Ross is when it comes to science. I mean even if you disagree with Ross,you can tell when he debated Victor Stenger that he was debating on a science level and could call Victor Stenger on his non-peer reviewed scientific views.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

It is useless to go against evidence without evidence to the contrary (which you don't have), no matter which way it lies. I changed my mind because I honestly looked into it and verified. For all it matters, you can take Darwin away and ToE would still stand on evidence, not on Dawrin.

And I'm sure Ross is very smart but as Lenox said "nonsense is still nonsense..."

At the risk of confirming just how clueless I am really about ToE...

I saw a documentary with Prof Brian Cox on evolution and natural selection. It was absolutely fascinating to watch. I have been brought up being taught ToE as fact. that we all evolved from a distant ancestor, that if you take it back far enough, we all originate from the one, one celled organism.
I am not scientifically minded at all, I prefer literature but as I understand it, there are thousands upon thousands of combinations and mutations that could occur, to the point where scientists state that the chances of natural selection being purely chance is so infinitely small, it`s impossible.

I am not totally convinced by evolution, but, there is an awful lot of evidence for it and personally I don`t see it clashing with creationism. Someone had to start the process off, why not God? I`m still figuring out how my faith fits in with science, or how science fits with my faith but for me, ToE doesn`t clash with God in any way.

Storyteller wrote:At the risk of confirming just how clueless I am really about ToE...

I saw a documentary with Prof Brian Cox on evolution and natural selection. It was absolutely fascinating to watch. I have been brought up being taught ToE as fact. that we all evolved from a distant ancestor, that if you take it back far enough, we all originate from the one, one celled organism.
I am not scientifically minded at all, I prefer literature but as I understand it, there are thousands upon thousands of combinations and mutations that could occur, to the point where scientists state that the chances of natural selection being purely chance is so infinitely small, it`s impossible.

I am not totally convinced by evolution, but, there is an awful lot of evidence for it and personally I don`t see it clashing with creationism. Someone had to start the process off, why not God? I`m still figuring out how my faith fits in with science, or how science fits with my faith but for me, ToE doesn`t clash with God in any way.

And you are right it doesn't. I feel the same way, God started things.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
That is why science accepts ToE and not GT or PC. Because they neither posit any predictions nor are open to corrections, in the same way, science is. But then that is how all beliefs work.


And also, that is why if there is ever such evidence that shows inconsistencies between ToE's prediction and scientific findings, then yes we could scrap it and start anew. That is the beauty of it. GT and PC, or any other form of belief can't do that. And that is why it's not considered science in the first place.

That's absolutely false Neo. I've told you, at least, two times that Hugh Ross' book More Than a Theory, does posit predictions and is open to corrections.

I think you really need to read the book, so you'll stop making these false assertions.

On the contrary, I did read it, and Ross' so called predictions are scientific and geological facts that he states would be found in his model, which is talking in circles. And when he doesn't do that he makes non-specific predictions, vague to the point that you can change them to fit anything and refilter it. I was quite disappointed by Ross' predictions. He fits evidence into the theory, working his way backwards.

I mean he is a scientist. If his predictions are correct, why not push them to peer review? But I think I know the reason they won't hold up. And that is why I call it belief and not science.

Here is the list of his predictions:
1. transcendent creation event
2. cosmic fine-tuning
3. fine-tuning of the earth’s, solar system’s, and Milky Way Galaxy’s characteristics
4. rapidity of life’s origin
5. lack of inorganic kerogen
6. extreme biomolecular complexity
7. Cambrian explosion
8. missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
9. placement and frequency of “transitional forms” in the fossil record
10. fossil record reversal
11. frequency and extent of mass extinctions
12. recovery from mass extinctions
13. duration of time windows for different species
14. frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
15. frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
16. speciation and extinction rates
17. recent origin of humanity
18. huge biodeposits
19. Genesis’ perfect fit with the fossil record
20. molecular clock rates

Just take #20...really he/his model predicted that?
No, he just states all these things and then claims his model predicts that, but sadly science does that.

Take #3
That's the anthropic statement, it's not even a prediction.

Most of the items on this list is common knowledge.
What horrifies me is his obsession to fit Genesis with every scientific fact we know, and that ends in either the Bible being distorted or the correlation being silly.

I'm afraid, I'm not making false assertions, Rick. You would know given my history on this topic and my love of science, if Ross's statements had been actual prediction based on a model, I would have had no trouble accepting it. But they're not really what he says they are and I am not sure how one can accept that.

I call it belief and I respect if you call it that. I have no qualms about it. After all, I believe in God creating things but not the way we think when reading genesis. But if it is being passed on as science, then I would expect some science behind it. But in truth Ross' motivation is to fix the bible in science or vice versa. I think this attitude is misguided to some extent and it starts to look ugly very soon if continued.

Tl;Dr Ross's predictions failed to impress me. I find them misleading, vague and non-specific. In short, not scientific predictions at all.

Neo,
Do you mind telling me where in More Than a Theory, that you got that 1-20 list that you call his predictions, from? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I'll give you another example of life that has adapted to liv in a hostile environment. Bacteria that grows and thrives in Chernobyl,it actually feeds on the radiation in Chernobyl,it is some resiliant stuff God created but its still bacteria,so much for natural selection causing it to evolve,.

Just because it hasn't evolved to the extent of "species change" doesn't mean evolution hasn't taken place.

Ken

Then Charles Darwin was totally wrong and the ToE should have been dropped from science along time ago.Before Charles Darwin wrote "the Origin of Species" evolution was just an idea,it became a scientific theory because of Charles Darwin's book and influence and yet Darwin has never been shown scientifically correct,not even close. Scientists have had to change what evolution is and have had to weaken what it means to evolve because of a lack of evidence,yet still pushing the evolution myth up the hill.

Evolutionists cannot throw Charles Darwin under the bus and make up their own evolution because they never came close to showing Darwin was right,and yet that's exactly what they did.To where now normal variation in reproduction that was known about thousands of years before Charles Darwin ,hence dogs and roses and was the very thing that caused Darwin to assume life evolves which is why he wrote his book,is now used for evidence life evolves along with demonstrating life can adapt and claiming it means it evolved.

This is a weakened water down version of evolution from when Darwin got it all started and its because of a lack of evidence but yet still pushing this evolution myth. Sorry for the long rant,but its true.

Well I guess since you said it, that makes it true right? Nothing like making claims with backing anything up (LOL)
Naww... but seriously; Micro evolution does not include species change, Macro evolution does. Perhaps you just have a problem accepting Macro evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

Ken

Storyteller wrote:At the risk of confirming just how clueless I am really about ToE...

I saw a documentary with Prof Brian Cox on evolution and natural selection. It was absolutely fascinating to watch. I have been brought up being taught ToE as fact. that we all evolved from a distant ancestor, that if you take it back far enough, we all originate from the one, one celled organism.
I am not scientifically minded at all, I prefer literature but as I understand it, there are thousands upon thousands of combinations and mutations that could occur, to the point where scientists state that the chances of natural selection being purely chance is so infinitely small, it`s impossible.

I am not totally convinced by evolution, but, there is an awful lot of evidence for it and personally I don`t see it clashing with creationism. Someone had to start the process off, why not God? I`m still figuring out how my faith fits in with science, or how science fits with my faith but for me, ToE doesn`t clash with God in any way.

Well even the Pope and Vatican accepts the Theory of Evolution, and even goes as far as calling creationism "blasphemous". The way I see it, if those guys can accept it, anyone can

http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2014/1 ... lasphemous

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

One of the problems I have with the “conspiracy theories” such as the one you are claiming; is there are too many people involved, and in order to pull it off, those involved would have to be too perfect.

If we assume there are flaws in the Theory of Evolution that even a non expert such as yourself can plainly see (as you claim) That would mean the thousands of Biologists, Paleontologists, and various other scientists WORLD WIDE, who swear up and down about this theory, and who knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than you and I combined would have to conspire to deceive the public on an issue they know is not true.
They would have to turn down fame, and fortune in order to keep this deception going. And for what? The greater good? To refute God? So Darwin doesn’t look bad?

I don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep such a secret hidden for the past 150 years without not one person slipping up and taking the fame and fortune. I believe people are too greedy, too selfish, too fame driven to sit on top of such a story for such a long time; especially with so many people involved.

I do not know a lot about everything under the umbrella of Evolution, but when I look at the big picture, such a conspiracy doesn’t sound realistic to me.

Ken

Such a pointless argument, that argues of things that would have been FAR later from and entirely the result and dependent upon what happened at the Big Bang - the thing that REALLY needs explaining, as far as the existence of God. Of course, non-theists love to argue about TOE because they have absolutely no answer how what could occur and immediately come into existence, it's immediate design and functions so stupendously precise and consistently obedient to the laws of the universe (and NOT, btw, some chaotic jumble of independently, randomly operating things, but of poetry of motion and interactive function, on a vast scale, propelled by untold power. The endless TOE arguments, while all non-theist have to argue over, is basically a SNOOZEFEST - not to mention a total dodge of addressing the far bigger question!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Philip wrote: Such a pointless argument, that argues of things that would have been FAR later from and entirely the result and dependent upon what happened at the Big Bang - the thing that REALLY needs explaining, as far as the existence of God. Of course, non-theists love to argue about TOE because they have absolutely no answer how what could occur and immediately come into existence, it's immediate design and functions so stupendously precise and consistently obedient to the laws of the universe (and NOT, btw, some chaotic jumble of independently, randomly operating things, but of poetry of motion and interactive function, on a vast scale, propelled by untold power. The endless TOE arguments, while all non-theist have to argue over, is basically a SNOOZEFEST - not to mention a total dodge of addressing the far bigger question!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Beats discussing the personality of an imaginary god.