Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.

Right, people heard thunder and imagined angels bowling in heaven. Two people were walking in the jungle, one was eaten by a lion and the other lived to tell his tale of being favored by God and angelic beings protecting him from danger only to die another day.

I'm convinced.

Cute response, but I don't believe you are convinced. I believe you are one of the shit stains who rejects spiritual nature and doesn't accept spiritual evidence, and you are trying to be snarky. Let's clarify once again, you are never going to be convinced, there is nothing that can ever convince you. I can tell you about spiritual evidence all day long, and you will continue to reject it because you don't believe it is real. Until you can find it in yourself to accept spiritual nature, I can't help you, and the question in the OP remains unanswered.

It's sad to watch this, really, because what this massive thread proves, is even those who have chosen to reject spirituality, want an answer to the question. You can never find that answer because your mind is closed to the only real evidence which can apply. So you are perpetually frustrated that other people don't seem to share your disbelief, and have seemingly found the answer to the question. This manifests itself into 2000+ post threads, full of snarky denigration and sarcastic retorts, from people just like yourself.

 

[hobelim]

Sorry, I have not mentioned a deity. I personally don't believe in deities. I also didn't claim anything created luck. The point you are missing is, the people who claim blessings could just as easily attributed luck, but they didn't. They believe this wasn't luck, but the result of spiritual intervention, which is why a separate word was created to describe it.

Right, people heard thunder and imagined angels bowling in heaven. Two people were walking in the jungle, one was eaten by a lion and the other lived to tell his tale of being favored by God and angelic beings protecting him from danger only to die another day.

I'm convinced.

Cute response, but I don't believe you are convinced. I believe you are one of the shit stains who rejects spiritual nature and doesn't accept spiritual evidence, and you are trying to be snarky. Let's clarify once again, you are never going to be convinced, there is nothing that can ever convince you. I can tell you about spiritual evidence all day long, and you will continue to reject it because you don't believe it is real. Until you can find it in yourself to accept spiritual nature, I can't help you, and the question in the OP remains unanswered. .

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.


You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.


And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Right, people heard thunder and imagined angels bowling in heaven. Two people were walking in the jungle, one was eaten by a lion and the other lived to tell his tale of being favored by God and angelic beings protecting him from danger only to die another day.

I'm convinced.

Cute response, but I don't believe you are convinced. I believe you are one of the shit stains who rejects spiritual nature and doesn't accept spiritual evidence, and you are trying to be snarky. Let's clarify once again, you are never going to be convinced, there is nothing that can ever convince you. I can tell you about spiritual evidence all day long, and you will continue to reject it because you don't believe it is real. Until you can find it in yourself to accept spiritual nature, I can't help you, and the question in the OP remains unanswered. .

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.


You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.


And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

but Yet this is what takes place every day when pupils hurry in to their classrooms not aware that their professor spent most of his youth getting high because he thought it was cool. That might answer why so many vivid imaginations are found in the colleges.

 

[Boss]

In essence, the thread question is answered according to whether or not you accept spiritual nature. Those who refuse to acknowledge spiritual nature, can never find the proof they require to believe god exists, while those who do accept spiritual nature, have an abundance of spiritual evidence to support their belief.

Right. I've gathered that much. And I can't answer such a question without a more complete definition of 'spiritual nature'. It seems likely you've been around this shed somewhere in the midst of these 2000 or so posts, so I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself. I was hoping you'd address my question regarding the distinctions among the related concepts of 'non-physical', 'spiritual' and 'supernatural'.

I can accept that man has a non-physical, 'spiritual' nature. But the concept of supernatural is incoherent. Either something is real, or it's not. As I've stated, I believe gods are real, non-physical entities (just as human minds are real, non-physical entities), but they aren't magical in nature. They're subtle, and quite powerful, constructs of human society that we are only beginning to understand.

I really do appreciate your candor and willingness to intelligently discuss this topic like a mature adult. I want to again commend you on the effort, it is certainly appreciated in light of what we've been getting from others here. At least you are willing to open your mind to some possibility, and that is all anyone can ask in a debate of this magnitude.

I am going to take the liberty of giving my personal interpretations here, I am not claiming this to be empirical, it's simply where my personal viewpoints rest. I think spiritual nature is an unseen energy or presence of spirit that we can't detect with physics at this time. It is there, just as the material world around us is there. It is part of reality, just as physical presence is part of reality, it just can't be verified or confirmed physically, because it isn't physical in nature. I don't believe this qualifies it as "supernatural" because it is a fundamental part of nature. In fact, it was pointed out earlier, the actual condition we recognize as "life" is spiritual. Everything in the universe is comprised of common elements, they are arranged by humans on the Periodic Table. What makes particular combinations of these elements "organic" rather than "inorganic" is spiritual nature. Certain elements come together and their atoms react with one another to create what is known as "electricity" and the force which makes this 'reality' is spiritual nature. Everything that is a predictable law of physics or science, is the result of spiritual energy. We can explain HOW something happens with physical science, we can't explain WHY it happens.

Black holes were mentioned earlier, and it's interesting because the phenomenon is not predicted by physics. We believed that physics applied everywhere in our universe, that it was consistent and...well...universal. But then we discovered black holes, dark energy, antimatter, wormholes. We're not sure what the heck these things are, because they simply defy what we previously understood and thought. It is causing us to have to literally reevaluate the universe and what we know about it.

Now think about this for a hot second... Let's imagine that 60 years ago, long before science knew anything about black holes, some 'prophet' began speaking of this 'message from god' he had received, and god had revealed to him, the universe has a hole in it, where even light could not escape... what would have been the response from the science community to this? Oh, that's absolute nonsense! We would have been bombarded with physics and science showing that such a thing was just not possible. The closed-minded would have mocked and ridiculed the prophet, and demanded some kind of "proof" for his insane claims. Of course, all the prophet has is spiritual evidence, so it would have been dismissed by those who reject spiritual evidence.

I think we have to be extremely careful drawing assumptive conclusions regarding physical sciences. As we've seen throughout the history of science, it is not always correct or complete. In fact, the very nature of scientific method, continues to ask questions, it does not conclude things. I do not know that we will never make a physical discovery of spiritual energy, but the logic dichotomy comes into play if we ever do, because it would immediately cease to be "spiritual" if proven by physical evidence. Perhaps, in that case, we would still refer to it as "spiritual" out of habit, or distinction?

I want to tackle one more thing here... you used the word "magical" when you spoke of god previously. What do you mean by "magic?" As most of us are aware, there is really not a such thing as true "magic" and what we perceive as such, is merely an illusion. How it is presented, may be a complete mystery, but there is always a logical and rational explanation, the magician does not have supernatural powers. When I examine the numerous theories of abiogenesis, it seems quite "magical" to me.

It reminds me of when I was a kid, and we vacationed in Florida. We would buy these things called "Sea Monkeys" at the novelty store. It was a dry packet of crystals you mixed with water, and in a few days, you were supposed to have mystical and fascinating sea monkeys, doing tricks and acrobatics, right before your very eyes! Well the "magic" was, these were dehydrated brine shrimp, when hydrated, they began growing. Mine never did tricks or look like the ones on the packet, I was very disappointed.

I resurrected this memory because when I think of all the amazing miracles of life around us, I can't imagine it resulting from a single-cell organism, and it reminds me of Sea Monkeys. To me, it is much more plausible to think life emerged through spiritual energy, much the same as electricity, gravity, and principles of physics. This belief does not mean that I have a religious concept of a god who is jealous or angry, who requires praise and worship, who punishes sin or whatever. That is a theological concept that may or may not be correct, in my opinion. I am not here to address the possibility of such a deity, I don't know that such a god exists, even in a spiritual sense. Still, I think there is a guiding spiritual force in our universe, and humans have the ability to connect with it, which is the "magic" behind humans and humanity.

 

[hobelim]

Cute response, but I don't believe you are convinced. I believe you are one of the shit stains who rejects spiritual nature and doesn't accept spiritual evidence, and you are trying to be snarky. Let's clarify once again, you are never going to be convinced, there is nothing that can ever convince you. I can tell you about spiritual evidence all day long, and you will continue to reject it because you don't believe it is real. Until you can find it in yourself to accept spiritual nature, I can't help you, and the question in the OP remains unanswered. .

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.


You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.


And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

but Yet this is what takes place every day when pupils hurry in to their classrooms not aware that their professor spent most of his youth getting high because he thought it was cool. That might answer why so many vivid imaginations are found in the colleges.

LOL...What the?

You have something against vivid imaginations in colleges?


The problem is unrestrained imaginations in the churches who teach adults that what amount to children's fairy tales are the literal historical truth.


That's when a person who allows falsehood to enter their thought process and color their perceptions risks losing their rational mind...... and once they have lost it with what can they get it back?


Do you believe that God diddled a virgin to father himself to become fully human without a human father because he loved the world so much?

Do you get all teary eyed and sentimental when you imagine God wearing diapers on Christmas morn?


If you can answer yes to any of the above I suggest you smoke a joint, relax, and try to be rational.

 

[Boss]

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.

You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.

And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

Let the record show, once again, we have someone making the allegation that the OP argument has been refuted, when that is not the case. You will note, there is no example given, no refuting point raised, just more "profound" opinion from someone who rejects spiritual evidence.

And for the record, I have never asked anyone to set aside their rational mind, I want you to USE your rational mind, not CLOSE it to possibility. It is actually YOU who wants to reject rationality and close your mind to spiritual nature. Throughout this thread, people just like you, have abandoned logic and rationality, in order to cling to their disbelief. They maintain that mankind has deluded himself into believing a figment of their imagination is real, because man needed answers to questions that no other living thing seems to be bothered by, and to comfort fears of death that no other species of life seems to be aware of, and this quirky and 'unnecessary' attribute has persisted in the species for all of it's existence, and remains the most defining characteristic of the species...even though, there is no other natural example of this. To dismiss this very real human behavioral trait as superficial and meaningless, is contradictory to even the very science espoused by Darwin and others.

I'm sorry, your weak little chortles have not refuted my argument in the least.

 

[hobelim]

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.

You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.

And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

Let the record show, once again, we have someone making the allegation that the OP argument has been refuted, when that is not the case. You will note, there is no example given, no refuting point raised, just more "profound" opinion from someone who rejects spiritual evidence.

And for the record, I have never asked anyone to set aside their rational mind, I want you to USE your rational mind, not CLOSE it to possibility. It is actually YOU who wants to reject rationality and close your mind to spiritual nature. Throughout this thread, people just like you, have abandoned logic and rationality, in order to cling to their disbelief. They maintain that mankind has deluded himself into believing a figment of their imagination is real, because man needed answers to questions that no other living thing seems to be bothered by, and to comfort fears of death that no other species of life seems to be aware of, and this quirky and 'unnecessary' attribute has persisted in the species for all of it's existence, and remains the most defining characteristic of the species...even though, there is no other natural example of this. To dismiss this very real human behavioral trait as superficial and meaningless, is contradictory to even the very science espoused by Darwin and others.

I'm sorry, your weak little chortles have not refuted my argument in the least.

LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.

I'm sure you get off on screwing with peoples minds but it seems that you have only succeeded in screwing your own.

congratulations!

 

[Derideo_Te]

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.

You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.

And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

Let the record show, once again, we have someone making the allegation that the OP argument has been refuted, when that is not the case. You will note, there is no example given, no refuting point raised, just more "profound" opinion from someone who rejects spiritual evidence.

And for the record, I have never asked anyone to set aside their rational mind, I want you to USE your rational mind, not CLOSE it to possibility. It is actually YOU who wants to reject rationality and close your mind to spiritual nature. Throughout this thread, people just like you, have abandoned logic and rationality, in order to cling to their disbelief. They maintain that mankind has deluded himself into believing a figment of their imagination is real, because man needed answers to questions that no other living thing seems to be bothered by, and to comfort fears of death that no other species of life seems to be aware of, and this quirky and 'unnecessary' attribute has persisted in the species for all of it's existence, and remains the most defining characteristic of the species...even though, there is no other natural example of this. To dismiss this very real human behavioral trait as superficial and meaningless, is contradictory to even the very science espoused by Darwin and others.

I'm sorry, your weak little chortles have not refuted my argument in the least.

Once again IRRATIONAL Boss is in a state of ABJECT DENIAL. A rational person rejects the concept of being told that imaginary things are "real" because some clown on a message board who can't keep his own story straight says so. You have denied anything to do with religion while using it whenever it suits your purpose. You have denied your God while using him whenever it was convenient to do so. You have erroneously alleged that there is no way to measure "spirituality" and then backpedaled when it was demonstrated that it can be measured. You have alleged that Darwin "supports" your drivel only to be exposed as someone who doesn't understand evolution. You have flipflopped on every single point so many times that even you don't know which side you are on any more. What is most amusing of all is that you have no clue just how ignorant you appear.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.


You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.


And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

but Yet this is what takes place every day when pupils hurry in to their classrooms not aware that their professor spent most of his youth getting high because he thought it was cool. That might answer why so many vivid imaginations are found in the colleges.

LOL...What the?

You have something against vivid imaginations in colleges?


The problem is unrestrained imaginations in the churches who teach adults that what amount to children's fairy tales are the literal historical truth.


That's when a person who allows falsehood to enter their thought process and color their perceptions risks losing their rational mind...... and once they have lost it with what can they get it back?


Do you believe that God diddled a virgin to father himself to become fully human without a human father because he loved the world so much?

Do you get all teary eyed and sentimental when you imagine God wearing diapers on Christmas morn?


If you can answer yes to any of the above I suggest you smoke a joint, relax, and try to be rational.

I am very rational and that is why I have the views that I have. I tried your side of the fence for too many years and then I grew up.

It took one human to get us in this mess and one to get us out so yes.

No on the second.

You act as many of the atheists and your disdain for the believer is noted.

 

[daws101]

How did this address the main question that your side has no answer for. 7 different layers of strata in every layer of strata around the earth we have both land fossils and marine fossils buried together explain away dumbshit. Scientists can't explain it away so I doubt you would Wikipedia boy. They used scientific evidence and the scientific method if you say otherwise you are either the dumbest person that ever owned a computer or you once again are talking out your ass and have no Idea what you copy and paste.

the main question has already been answered, you as always have mental block every time that happens,
also your pseudoscientists did not use any scientific evidence (I've seen those clips) and there is no actually science involved.
what they did was intentionally misinterpret evidence they did not collect or analyze and constructed a false premise to speciously speculate on to fit the creation fairytale.



On Land and in Sea

"The occurrence of Jurassic land and coastal sediments in western Cuba is well-known," said Iturralde-Vinent. "In these sediments I have been looking for dinosaurs for many years, and in the end the search was successful as we located a small bone. This find opens great possibilities for future research."

The dinosaur bone was found in layers of earth from the Late Jurassic Jagua Formation in what had once been coastal sediments.

"The deposits where the bones are found accumulated 154 to 146 million years ago in shallow marine waters very close to the shore, allowing representatives of land and marine elements be found in the same beds," said Iturralde-Vinent

Abundant remains of terrestrial vegetation such as fern trees, the fossil remains of at least two species of pterosaurs—extinct flying reptiles—and marine reptile fossils were found in the same strata.

Iturralde-Vinent notes that such a mixture of terrestrial and marine animals is not unusual in paleontology.


_ "The only dinosaur known from Antarctica was a fossil remain found in marine sediments," he explained. "Sometimes the animal dies and a river might carry the floating body into open waters. The bodies can float while they are in the process of decomposition."

Expeditions in the last several years have led to the discovery and description of several new taxa of gigantic ancient aquatic reptiles (pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs), as well as crocodiles, turtles, and flying reptiles (pterosaurs). New species of turtle, Caribemys oxfordiensis, and plesiosaur, Vinalesaurus caroli, were recently discovered, as was a pterosaur that had a tail and soared in the prehistoric skies with a wingspan of nearly 4 meters (13 feet).

The search for Jurassic fossils in Cuba is a joint project of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural of Cuba and the Museo de La Plata in Argentina, and is partially funded by the National Geographic Society.
Cuban Dinosaur: First Confirmed Remains Discovered

Looks like your side is trying to change their story on this issue.

The fossils of various frondlike and sacklike organisms that supposedly lived at the bottom of ancient oceans may actually represent some of the earliest organisms to dwell on land.

'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers - ScienceNOW

The Morrison formation has produced land and marine fossils.

Many different species of Jurassic-age dinosaurs have been unearthed from the Morrison Formation in the CYFO including: Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, and Stegosaurus. Quite often, theropod teeth have been found when exhuming sauropod bones. The Sundance Formation has also yielded fossils of numerous marine reptiles including Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus.

Paleontology

you do realize that you're proving my point for me.
all of what you've posted refutes both your great flood and young earth myths.
as to trying to change meanings that what you do, and badly I might add.

 

[daws101]

I disagree because nature exists because of a spiritual being.

Prove it.

Don't have to the view is based in faith.

since faith proves nothing but faith ,your view is imaginary and false

 

[daws101]

Cute response, but I don't believe you are convinced. I believe you are one of the shit stains who rejects spiritual nature and doesn't accept spiritual evidence, and you are trying to be snarky. Let's clarify once again, you are never going to be convinced, there is nothing that can ever convince you. I can tell you about spiritual evidence all day long, and you will continue to reject it because you don't believe it is real. Until you can find it in yourself to accept spiritual nature, I can't help you, and the question in the OP remains unanswered. .

LOL ...You must have realized how stupid your whole position is... too bad you lack the integrity to shut up and go back to the drawing board.


You are no different than any two bit religious charlatan who tells you that you must set aside your rational mind and 'just believe' whatever bullshit they are selling or else you can never be a believer.


And no, your OP has been answered over and over again. You have provided no proof of anything except that it is impossible for someone as full of yourself as you are to acknowledge being soundly refuted.

but Yet this is what takes place every day when pupils hurry in to their classrooms not aware that their professor spent most of his youth getting high because he thought it was cool. That might answer why so many vivid imaginations are found in the colleges.

a vividly false assumption.

 

[daws101]

but Yet this is what takes place every day when pupils hurry in to their classrooms not aware that their professor spent most of his youth getting high because he thought it was cool. That might answer why so many vivid imaginations are found in the colleges.

LOL...What the?

You have something against vivid imaginations in colleges?


The problem is unrestrained imaginations in the churches who teach adults that what amount to children's fairy tales are the literal historical truth.


That's when a person who allows falsehood to enter their thought process and color their perceptions risks losing their rational mind...... and once they have lost it with what can they get it back?


Do you believe that God diddled a virgin to father himself to become fully human without a human father because he loved the world so much?

Do you get all teary eyed and sentimental when you imagine God wearing diapers on Christmas morn?


If you can answer yes to any of the above I suggest you smoke a joint, relax, and try to be rational.

I am very rational and that is why I have the views that I have. I tried your side of the fence for too many years and then I grew up.

It took one human to get us in this mess and one to get us out so yes.

No on the second.

You act as many of the atheists and your disdain for the believer is noted.

what do you call it when a poster famous for irrationalism, claims to be rational?

 

[Boss]

LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.

I'm sure you get off on screwing with peoples minds but it seems that you have only succeeded in screwing your own.

congratulations!

The argument presented is nothing at all like Peter Pan or neverland. It is based on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, you simply reject the spiritual evidence and dismiss the physical evidence. I'm sorry you have chosen to be closed-minded, but I can't do anything about that. I can show you how your conjectures are flawed and illogical, but it doesn't matter to you, the only objective you have is to continue disbelief.

Congratulate yourself, you once again, successfully denied your own spirituality. Most humans aren't able to do this, they eventually surrender to spirituality, and through it, have the capacity to do remarkable things. If you keep it up, perhaps you can relegate yourself back down to the level of other upper primates, whom you share similar DNA with? Swinging in trees and eating bananas all day is more your speed anyway.

 

[daws101]

LOL... Your whole argument is irrational. It amounts to claiming the proof of neverland is based on peter pan believing in it and if I don't accept that evidence I will never believe the proof.

I'm sure you get off on screwing with peoples minds but it seems that you have only succeeded in screwing your own.

congratulations!

The argument presented is nothing at all like Peter Pan or neverland. It is based on a combination of physical and spiritual evidence, you simply reject the spiritual evidence and dismiss the physical evidence. I'm sorry you have chosen to be closed-minded, but I can't do anything about that. I can show you how your conjectures are flawed and illogical, but it doesn't matter to you, the only objective you have is to continue disbelief.

Congratulate yourself, you once again, successfully denied your own spirituality. Most humans aren't able to do this, they eventually surrender to spirituality, and through it, have the capacity to do remarkable things. If you keep it up, perhaps you can relegate yourself back down to the level of other upper primates, whom you share similar DNA with? Swinging in trees and eating bananas all day is more your speed anyway.

what amazing about this thread is boss made his point in the first post, everything he's posted after that is unnecessary reiteration .
this must be the net version of loving the sound of your own voice.

 

[BreezeWood]

Nobody knows what happens at death. That's why it's called 'the unknown'.

Sorry to be rude Joe - but is there a sliding gradient for those that simply die not caring to those who know before they die their prospects - the combination for Spiritual Remission and life found in the Everlasting ?

"What's that mean?"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jlUNrK9Kv4]Whats That Mean? - YouTube[/ame]

Nobody knows what happens at death.

- one good sign is you stop breathing ....


also that is because they have not reached the Apex for the Knowledge of Life - and with the correct conclusion may persist beyond their last breath, Joe - instead of dying ... the Knowledge before death as being earned rather than the allure of "chance" others, exp Christians seem to be relying on.


* but really Joe, what is of most interest is how to lose that god-auful color that shows up on the post name title - yours is an nice blue - how about sharing the secret ?

 

[Boss]

Once again IRRATIONAL Boss is in a state of ABJECT DENIAL. A rational person rejects the concept of being told that imaginary things are "real" because some clown on a message board who can't keep his own story straight says so. You have denied anything to do with religion while using it whenever it suits your purpose. You have denied your God while using him whenever it was convenient to do so. You have erroneously alleged that there is no way to measure "spirituality" and then backpedaled when it was demonstrated that it can be measured. You have alleged that Darwin "supports" your drivel only to be exposed as someone who doesn't understand evolution. You have flipflopped on every single point so many times that even you don't know which side you are on any more. What is most amusing of all is that you have no clue just how ignorant you appear.

There is nothing imaginary about spiritualism, it has existed as long as humans have. Because you continue to repeat that it isn't real and you don't believe in it, doesn't mean a thing to me. If you could offer any evidence or even logic, to support your opinion, it might be different, but you can't. All you can do is continue to try and spin this into a religious argument, because you just love to bash religion. It pisses you off that I won't let you do this, so you have taken to accusing me of covertly prosthelytizing, as well as not being consistent. I have not flip-flopped on anything, you have misconstrued or misinterpreted things, which I have clarified, and you have decided these are flip-flops.

You have not shown a way to measure spirituality. You have pointed out that science can measure brain activity, and that's it. But you continue to repeat this as if science can look into our heads and see us making a spiritual connection or imagining a giant angry pink unicorn in the sky. I think you honestly believe science can do this, and you've decided to hang your hat on that, and pound this point home. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't disprove existence of a spiritual entity, or refute the OP argument in any way.

 

[Youwerecreated]

the main question has already been answered, you as always have mental block every time that happens,
also your pseudoscientists did not use any scientific evidence (I've seen those clips) and there is no actually science involved.
what they did was intentionally misinterpret evidence they did not collect or analyze and constructed a false premise to speciously speculate on to fit the creation fairytale.



On Land and in Sea

"The occurrence of Jurassic land and coastal sediments in western Cuba is well-known," said Iturralde-Vinent. "In these sediments I have been looking for dinosaurs for many years, and in the end the search was successful as we located a small bone. This find opens great possibilities for future research."

The dinosaur bone was found in layers of earth from the Late Jurassic Jagua Formation in what had once been coastal sediments.

"The deposits where the bones are found accumulated 154 to 146 million years ago in shallow marine waters very close to the shore, allowing representatives of land and marine elements be found in the same beds," said Iturralde-Vinent

Abundant remains of terrestrial vegetation such as fern trees, the fossil remains of at least two species of pterosaurs—extinct flying reptiles—and marine reptile fossils were found in the same strata.

Iturralde-Vinent notes that such a mixture of terrestrial and marine animals is not unusual in paleontology.


_ "The only dinosaur known from Antarctica was a fossil remain found in marine sediments," he explained. "Sometimes the animal dies and a river might carry the floating body into open waters. The bodies can float while they are in the process of decomposition."

Expeditions in the last several years have led to the discovery and description of several new taxa of gigantic ancient aquatic reptiles (pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs), as well as crocodiles, turtles, and flying reptiles (pterosaurs). New species of turtle, Caribemys oxfordiensis, and plesiosaur, Vinalesaurus caroli, were recently discovered, as was a pterosaur that had a tail and soared in the prehistoric skies with a wingspan of nearly 4 meters (13 feet).

The search for Jurassic fossils in Cuba is a joint project of the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural of Cuba and the Museo de La Plata in Argentina, and is partially funded by the National Geographic Society.
Cuban Dinosaur: First Confirmed Remains Discovered

Looks like your side is trying to change their story on this issue.

The fossils of various frondlike and sacklike organisms that supposedly lived at the bottom of ancient oceans may actually represent some of the earliest organisms to dwell on land.

'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers - ScienceNOW

The Morrison formation has produced land and marine fossils.

Many different species of Jurassic-age dinosaurs have been unearthed from the Morrison Formation in the CYFO including: Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, and Stegosaurus. Quite often, theropod teeth have been found when exhuming sauropod bones. The Sundance Formation has also yielded fossils of numerous marine reptiles including Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus.

Paleontology

you do realize that you're proving my point for me.
all of what you've posted refutes both your great flood and young earth myths.
as to trying to change meanings that what you do, and badly I might add.

Daws grow a brain repeating things you post is not helping you make your point I am refuting your comment that there was no such evidence it was made up by creationists.
Now answer the question how dry land fossils are found buried in the same strata as marine fossils but 7 layers of strata and its found on every continent.

 

[daws101]

Looks like your side is trying to change their story on this issue.

The fossils of various frondlike and sacklike organisms that supposedly lived at the bottom of ancient oceans may actually represent some of the earliest organisms to dwell on land.

'Marine' Fossils May Instead Represent Early Land Dwellers - ScienceNOW

The Morrison formation has produced land and marine fossils.

Many different species of Jurassic-age dinosaurs have been unearthed from the Morrison Formation in the CYFO including: Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, and Stegosaurus. Quite often, theropod teeth have been found when exhuming sauropod bones. The Sundance Formation has also yielded fossils of numerous marine reptiles including Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus.

Paleontology

you do realize that you're proving my point for me.
all of what you've posted refutes both your great flood and young earth myths.
as to trying to change meanings that what you do, and badly I might add.

Daws grow a brain repeating things you post is not helping you make your point I am refuting your comment that there was no such evidence it was made up by creationists.
Now answer the question how dry land fossils are found buried in the same strata together but 7 layers of strata and its found on every continent.

YWC finally tell the truth " there was no such evidence it was made up by creationists."-YWC

You heard it here first!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Prove it.

Don't have to the view is based in faith.

since faith proves nothing but faith ,your view is imaginary and false

Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method.

What is the first step in the scientific method ?