Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good evening daws !

 

[daws101]

I don't believe in the trinity knock yourself out but it was wise to post something but let me straighten you out on one thing though.

Three representations of one God. Remember Christians and Jews are monotheistic.

since you don't believe in the trinity then beside spitting on 2,000 years of Christian wisdom, your answer is irrelevant and anti Christian.
good job of fucking yourself slapdick..

Someone is getting Angry. Daws not all Christians believe in the trinity doctrine. By your reasoning everyone should be a Catholic.

Hmm, what ignorance you display.

lol! like all your other observations /statements it's wrong ..you're far too much of an ass kisser to make me angry.
also all Christians line is meaningless an over whelming majority do believe in the trinity..

 

[Hollie]

Not strange at all,you can't debate anything related to science because you don't know what it is.

bullshit! hollies' handed you your ass on that little gem too many times to remember.
masochist much.?

Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum

You have always been a joke.

I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya.

You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.

They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! hollies' handed you your ass on that little gem too many times to remember.
masochist much.?

Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum

You have always been a joke.

I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya.

You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.

They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.

Its no trick dumbass.

I would explain it but you lack the intelligence and motivation to bother understanding anything told you.

 

[Boss]

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and it isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false.

We weren't talking about what is true and false or objective reality. Don't wriggle away from what you stated and try to pretend we are arguing something different.

If we are not talking about the truth or objective reality, then there is no point to your OP.

Objective reality and "truth" are two different things. Objective reality deals with physical reality which we can be objective about. It has nothing at all to do with spiritual truth. We've already determined that God doesn't physically exist. Therefore, objective physical reality means very little to the question of god's existence. That said, we can objectively reason, if an animal has always exhibited a particular behavior, it's not merely a figment of imagination or delusion, there is a fundamental reason for the behavior, vital to the species.

If we are not talking about objective reality, then your argument is useless. Since you just admitted we are not talking about objective reality, you concede that the OP demonstrates nothing about reality.

Nothing about PHYSICAL reality, and that was pointed out in the OP. You don't comprehend anything other than physical reality, physical existence, material evidence. The very idea of spiritual nature is contradictory to what you believe in, and you have no way to rationalize what "spiritual existence" even means.

What other method would there be to reach the spiritual? Could you give an example? If not, you can not say it is the most successful method, since you don't have any other methods to compare it against. Just pointing out how flawed your general sense of logic is.

Well I was being sarcastic in my response, but I would say that people CAN connect spiritually through appreciation of nature.

You have yet to prove that humans are at all spiritual connected.

Not all humans are, you most certainly are not. I don't believe this was a claim I have ever made. You DO have the ABILITY to spiritually connect, you just choose not to use it.

"Evidence not being subjective by definition", means that nowhere in the definition of "evidence" is subjectivity indicated. To reword this so you understand, "subjective" is not part of the definition of evidence. You find a definition of evidence that indicates "subjectivity" and I'll concede that point. Until then, stfu.

Look you dishonest little fuck... YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective!" Now you are attempting to pretend that I said this? The POINT is conceded, you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about before, and now you've come to your senses. Glad I could school your ass on that.

Objectivity is not based on our perceptions. It is the opposite. Our perceptions are based on objective reality. Without an objective reality, there would be nothing to perceive, and we would not exist. Saying evidence is subjective is idiotic. A fossil, which is evidence for evolution, is not subjective. It is exists objectively, just like a rock, or a car, or a tree, or the sun. If you assert otherwise, then you admit that you don't believe in objective reality, and that reality itself is simply a figment of your imagination (solipsism). I doubt you want to go there, because then you are forced to concede your position, since god would simply be a construct of your mind and doesn't actually exist, and we are all just figments of your imagination.

ALL "evidence" is subjective, I am sorry if you don't get that. That a fossil exists, is not subjective, it either DOES or DOESN'T exist. Whether a fossil "PROVES" something, is indeed, SUBJECTIVE! Now you can dance around and pretend like I have taken your idiotic position, like you were doing before, and you can post loads of crap to support that fantasy, but that's not what my position was.... YOU said: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective," and I challenged you on that. You are STILL trying to claim, one minute, that it isn't subjective, but in the next paragraph, explaining how it IS subjective sometimes. You're full of shit, plain and simple.

What you are trying to address, and failing, is whether one considers something evidence at all, and this is related to epistemology, or how we know what we know.

You are very confused, and have demonstrated this with the myriad contradictions you have presented throughout this thread. You are not challenging anything about my position.

You are jumping around with your position, that's why! One minute, you tell us that evidence is not subjective, by definition... unless of course, it's "spiritual evidence" then it magically become subjective! Then you are dancing away from that claim, then back to it again, and claiming that I have taken your position and you've proven me wrong. You're fucking mental!

You haven't provided a shred of "spiritual evidence."

But... Yes, I have.

I never said, all evidence was not subjective. I said it was not contained in the definition. Let me try this again, since you don't seem to get what I was saying: Subjectivity is not a concept that is contained in the definition of evidence. Therefore, evidence can be either subjective or objective, since it is not specified. You admitted this, then continue on to say that all evidence is subjective. Again, contradicting yourself! You are a contradiction machine!

YOU SAID: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective." That is a direct quote from you, and I will go find the fucking post if you need me to, but that IS WHAT YOU SAID!

"Subjective" means "subject to our interpretation and evaluation." ALL evidence fits this definition, because ALL evidence has to be weighed on it's own merit... it doesn't become a fact by you proclaiming it evidence. If what you said were true, no one could ever challenge any evidence, it would all be empirical and unchallengeable. All evidence can be subjectively evaluated and found to be "objective and reasonable" or not so much, it depends on the evidence and perception of the evidence in question.

It does explain a lot about your mental rationality. If you presume that all evidence is unassailable fact that can't be challenged, no fucking telling what all you believe! There is evidence of UFOs and aliens... so I guess, since "evidence is, by definition, not subjective," that means everything claimed to be evidence of UFOs proves UFOs and aliens visit routinely? No need to question it, the evidence is not subjective, it can't be challenged subjectively.

It appears you just looked up epistemology. That much is obvious. Of course epistemology is applied to spiritual beliefs. Theist fundamentalists, such as yourself, have a differing epistemology, which is to say, the method by which they consider knowledge to be knowledge. Theirs is based on faith, not evidence.

WRONG. It is based on faith in spiritual evidence, which you reject. Again, I am not a theistic fundamentalist, we have covered this lie repeatedly, and you insist on continuing to assert it. Why is that? Is it because you feel more comfortable arguing this subject with a theist instead of an atheist? Or is it because an atheist is kicking your ass up one side of this board and down the other, making you say all kinds of stupid shit you have to run away from?

Faith, is grounded on intuition, which is categorically unreliable at getting at objective truth.

Spiritual faith is not based on intuition, it is based on understanding of a connection that is real, and has been made by humans for all their existence. You've not refuted this valid point, and you can't.

Just look at how successfully scientific epistemologies have been relative to spiritual ones. It is staggering. Epistemology doesn't say anything about the truth value of supernatural propositions such as yours, and doesn't attempt to, but it does objectively comment on the rationale behind considerations of knowledge, and when faith-based epistemologies are compared to evidence-based ones, it is clear who wins out. Just look at the world around you. Were airplanes built by appealing to the supernatural or on faith? Nope.

Airplanes were the product of inspiration, which comes from spiritual nature. Shall we run down the lengthy list of 'epistemologies' from science that have been absolutely wrong? This is precisely why the Scientific Method doesn't involve itself with drawing conclusions, and instead, continues to ask questions. Science predicts probability, and you have taken that fact and spun it into a belief system that can't be questioned. It's a vulgar perversion of science itself.

This is a classic attempt to switch the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you, who claimed that a god AND a spiritual realm exists.

NO... If you are going to state that spiritual nature does not exist, you have to prove that statement true. Those who accept spiritual nature, have no problem providing all the evidence they need to believe it is true. YOU are the one claiming, it is not true, and is a figment of our imagination, and so the burden of proof is on you, to prove your statement. Of course, you can't prove it, you will run from the challenge, claiming you can never prove a negative.... well then, shut the fuck up with the claims and admit that it's possible spiritual nature does exist, since you can't prove it doesn't.

You clearly don't know what proof is, what it means, or where it is applied. I'm not going to educate you, since you appear to want to remain delusional.

"Proof" is just like evidence, it is SUBJECTIVE, and depends on the individual's perception. If I see a ghost in my bedroom, that is PROOF to me that a ghost was present, it may NOT be PROOF to you. I'm sorry if your retard brain can't grasp that, but it's true. My OP "proves" god's existence, but you don't accept the evidence, therefore, you don't believe I have proven anything. Indeed, my OP presents both evidence and proof that is subjective, it is subject to personal evaluation based on whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.

YOU ARE SUCH A MORON. If spiritual evidence isn't anecdotal, then you are saying it is empirical? Where is it? If I can see it, touch it, smell, or taste it, why haven't I? Evidence being empirical, means it exists objectively, because empirical evidence is defined as that which you can sense through the five senses. This means you are sensing something in... objective reality. You admitted yourself that god does not exist in physical reality, yet we are only capable of interacting with physical reality. You argument of citing human belief for 70,000 years, means nothing, unless you can prove a sense by which humans could interact with the spiritual. This would be called a "sensus divinitatis," without which, your citation of human belief amounts to an argument from popularity.

Wow, you sure do devote an awful lot of your personal time, debating a "moron." What does that say about you? Here again, you are trying to establish that the ONLY type of "evidence" is physical in nature. I agree, physical evidence is physical in nature, but it has nothing to do with spiritual evidence, which is not physical in nature. Spiritual nature is also not objective physical reality, or it would be physical nature. It is every bit as spiritually "real" as physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists, because it doesn't conform to physical objectivity.

We are NOT "only capable of interacting with physical reality," as you said. Humans are capable of interacting with spiritual nature, and have done so for all their existence, and this is the defining attribute of our species because of the wonders it has enabled in humanity itself. In fact, I will argue that humans DO have another sense, a spiritual sense, which other living things don't have, and which makes us unique among all living things. The fact that you dismiss 70k years of intrinsic defining behavior in a species of life, shows that you have completely abandoned science and everything Darwin theorized, as well as everything we know about nature.

You need to prove a Sensus Divinitatis, otherwise, you admit that humans have no way of knowing about the spiritual realm.

Go read some Aristotle and Plato, since you seem to be waxing philosophical all the sudden. Both of these men, (who invented science, btw), were avid believers in a spiritual realm, something beyond the physical existence and presence we realize. Some of the stuff they theorized regarding that, has since been disproven, but the point is... these are among history's greatest minds.

We DO know about the spiritual realm, we connect to it daily, most of us. We've been doing it since we 'discovered fire' and you can't dispute that evidence. People such as yourself, have been around just as long, claiming there is nothing to it, it's hocus pocus, it's imagination, it's delusional, it's all in our heads... but the attribute remains as strong in humans as ever.

Did I ever say that evolution disproves god or spiritual nature? No, I didn't. However, I'm glad we can agree that a fossil exists objectively. I would also agree that ones perception of the evidence or whether something can be called evidence, is subjective. This is basic epistemology. However, this does not mean that the evidence itself is subjective, unless it is anecdotal evidence, in which case, the evidence is entirely subjective. Empirical evidence is not subjective. It can be pointed to, smelt, heard, touched, or tasted, and therefore does not merely exist in the mind. Therefore, empirical evidence exists objectively. Anecdotal evidence exists subjectively. Your evidence is entirely anecdotal and subjective, since it can't be sense with any of our five human senses.

So now we are back to flip-flopping around on whether evidence is subjective? I'm really getting tired of hearing your spin... You were wrong when you stated that "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and I have proven you wrong sufficiently. All the little trick ponies in the world, are not going to spin you out of this one. My evidence is not "anecdotal" ...ask any of the billions of people who will testify to my evidence. All of us, believe our spiritual evidence is empirical, if we didn't believe that, we couldn't be spiritual people. Again, what we are running into, is what I defined in the OP as a failure on your part, to recognize spiritual nature. That is the problem, not the type of evidence. You want to hold court on the physical evidence for the physical existence of god, and it is a superfluous argument no one has ever made. You look like a clown.

You are not an atheist, and you have no idea what special pleading means. So please, stop trying to simply copy me by using a term you don't understand in whichever way you think sounds good to you. It isn't special pleading to demand physical evidence for a spiritual thing, so get your fucking concepts straight. Special pleading means to lay an exemption for something, or to imply a double-standard. I am not implying a double-standard. In fact, you are. You are saying there is a different standard of evidence that applies to the spiritual.

Special pleading is what you are doing. There is no physical standard for spiritual nature, and you are pleading for there to be one. You would indeed make a great lawyer arguing a court case over the physical evidence for the physical existence of god.... unfortunately, that is not the debate.

The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.

My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.

Again, it is not my burden to prove that the spiritual nature doesn't exist. It is your burden to prove that it does. Therefore, I don't need empirical evidence, which according is irrelevant in this case. Since this spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans in any way, you have yet to answer how humans KNOW there is a spiritual realm. Belief is not evidence, and belief is not knowledge, yet you are claiming knowledge about the spiritual in making this claim. I can't wait to hear more of your vapid bullshit.

[/QUOTE]

Again.... You can NOT make a definitive statement, without supporting that statement. I have provided my proof of spiritual existence, it's in the OP for all to read, and you have done nothing to refute anything I have said, only to reinforce several points I made. You continue to completely misinterpret plain English that I type, like now you are claiming that I've said the spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans... where the fuck did you get that from? I never said it. The spiritual realm does indeed interact to those who believe in it and practice spiritual connection to it. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the 70k year history of it in mankind.

Now, the spiritual realm doesn't interact with YOU, obviously. But this is probably due to the fact that you deny it exists and think it's all a bunch of nonsense that humans made up. However, there are literally more people than you would ever be able to count, who profess a deep and profound belief and understanding of a spiritual realm.

If you are going to make the statement that Spiritual Nature is made up delusion and imagination, it is up to you to prove that. If you can't prove that, then you can't make that argument, no matter how you dress it up and pretend it has been made. You can't say that spiritual evidence is "anecdotal" because it doesn't conform to physical criteria, that is illogical, and you've not supported your argument with anything rational. Spiritual evidence is empirical to those who believe in spiritual nature. Evidence is subjective, isn't it?

 

[BreezeWood]

I'm not sure your answer is not a plethora of contradictions ... "to connect to spiritual nature" - "because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs" - "I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god" ---> ?

yes, the above does accurately describe mankind's search over the past 70,000 years, indeed.

i only meant reaching a state of purity would be significant for actually making contact with expectations greater than simply "preying" for success.

I admit, it does indeed sound like a contradiction, that I am an atheist who believes in god. As I've explained, the god I believe spiritually exists, is non theistic and doesn't conform to religious incarnations. It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity or force, which humans have always had the ability to connect with. Religion is more physical evidence that spiritual nature does exist, it prompts men to forge and surround themselves with these religious beliefs.

I still don't understand what you mean with regard to a "state of purity" or how that relates to our ability to spiritually connect. First of all, you aren't defining "purity" at all here, I have no idea what you mean. The fact that 95% of all humans have always been spiritual, shows that there is no special attribute required of humans, other than spiritual faith. You do have to believe in spiritual nature to connect to it.

Boss: Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms.

Boss: As I've explained, the god I believe spiritually exists, is non theistic and doesn't conform to religious incarnations. It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity or force, which humans have always had the ability to connect with.

It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity ...


why would you propose there is "an enormous and powerful spiritual entity" that exists for the exclusivity of mankind alone ? ... your argument that mankind is the sole beneficiary / disciple of this entity makes no sense at all or, as well that all else in the Universe is not cognoscente of its existence. - baffling to say the least ...

you state for 70,000 years mankind alone has pursued an attempt to contact the god you believe exists - but as an atheist you see no point in this behavior - so why would it be used by you as a form of proof of the entities existence ?

ok again, if for 70,000k years an attempt has been made to make contact - and has "failed" (lacking definitive proof - Hollies point) could the reason be, an impurity of Heart, as the reason ? ---> just asking - - that all other life forms do posses.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One can be considered an atheist by rejecting culturally accepted concepts of God and still accept the idea of a more impersonal Creator like many of the Deists did way back.

 

[Boss]

I'm not sure your answer is not a plethora of contradictions ... "to connect to spiritual nature" - "because I am atheistic in my religious beliefs" - "I merely wanted to present a legitimate case for existence of god" ---> ?

yes, the above does accurately describe mankind's search over the past 70,000 years, indeed.

i only meant reaching a state of purity would be significant for actually making contact with expectations greater than simply "preying" for success.

I admit, it does indeed sound like a contradiction, that I am an atheist who believes in god. As I've explained, the god I believe spiritually exists, is non theistic and doesn't conform to religious incarnations. It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity or force, which humans have always had the ability to connect with. Religion is more physical evidence that spiritual nature does exist, it prompts men to forge and surround themselves with these religious beliefs.

I still don't understand what you mean with regard to a "state of purity" or how that relates to our ability to spiritually connect. First of all, you aren't defining "purity" at all here, I have no idea what you mean. The fact that 95% of all humans have always been spiritual, shows that there is no special attribute required of humans, other than spiritual faith. You do have to believe in spiritual nature to connect to it.

Boss: Human spirituality exists and humans connect to something spiritually, and this makes us distinctly different than all other life forms.

Boss: As I've explained, the god I believe spiritually exists, is non theistic and doesn't conform to religious incarnations. It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity or force, which humans have always had the ability to connect with.

It is an enormous and powerful spiritual entity ...


why would you propose there is "an enormous and powerful spiritual entity" that exists for the exclusivity of mankind alone ? ... your argument that mankind is the sole beneficiary / disciple of this entity makes no sense at all or, as well that all else in the Universe is not cognoscente of its existence. - baffling to say the least ...

you state for 70,000 years mankind alone has pursued an attempt to contact the god you believe exists - but as an atheist you see no point in this behavior - so why would it be used by you as a form of proof of the entities existence ?

ok again, if for 70,000k years an attempt has been made to make contact - and has "failed" (lacking definitive proof - Hollies point) could the reason be, an impurity of Heart, as the reason ? ---> just asking - - that all other life forms do posses.

I did not argue that spiritual nature is "exclusive to man," it is responsible for all life. I did not argue that man is the sole beneficiary. Until I start seeing chimps congregating for Sunday School class, I won't believe that other animals have the ability to spiritually connect to something they are spiritually aware of. Now... that's not to say this is impossible. I'm sorry if you EVER interpret anything I say as being an impossibility. I am very clearly an advocate of "nothing is impossible," and there should never be any confusion. I don't see evidence of other animals spiritually worshiping something greater than self. It is entirely possible that all of nature's life, does communicate and interact with spiritual nature, it would make logical sense for this, since spiritual nature created the universe.

I reject the argument that people have failed to spiritually connect. A pure heart is not required. Belief in spiritual nature is required. I try and respect other people's spiritual dogma as much as possible, but I am not here to argue theological concepts. The question all boils down to whether you believe spiritual nature exists. For those who don't believe it does, no amount of proof will ever be enough, and for those who do, the proof is overwhelming and undeniable. There will always be those who do and those who don't, because there always has been, it's also human nature.

 

[Bezukhov]

I may have to re-think my Atheistic outlook. There may very well be a merciful and loving God out there. I read this today:

Glenn Beck's Vocal Cords Temporarily Paralyzed; Delivers Tearful Monologue Through Cue Cards (VIDEO)

 

[Hollie]

Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum

You have always been a joke.

I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya.

You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.

They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.

That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.

 

[newpolitics]

We weren't talking about what is true and false or objective reality. Don't wriggle away from what you stated and try to pretend we are arguing something different.

If we are not talking about the truth or objective reality, then there is no point to your OP.

Objective reality and "truth" are two different things. Objective reality deals with physical reality which we can be objective about. It has nothing at all to do with spiritual truth. We've already determined that God doesn't physically exist. Therefore, objective physical reality means very little to the question of god's existence. That said, we can objectively reason, if an animal has always exhibited a particular behavior, it's not merely a figment of imagination or delusion, there is a fundamental reason for the behavior, vital to the species.

Objectivity has nothing to do with physical reality, by logical necessity. God would exist objectively, yet not in the physical, refuting your point entirely. Objective simply means "mind-independant," or not dependent upon the perception of anyone, anywhere for it to be the case. If god doesn't exist objectively, again, you will have conceded your entire argument, since god would only exist in your head, and have no relevance to anyone else's life. Unless, you are claiming that you are god??? Therefore, objectivity and truth are not two different things, because truth is something that exists whether we want it to or not. To say it another way, truth is mind-independan, or, objective. Same thing. If truth is different from person to person, then it isn't truth, it is belief. Belief IS subjective and says nothing about truth or objective reality. "Spiritual truth" is just another name for belief. You are begging the question again in using the term "spiritual truth" since what you are trying to prove is the spiritual, and have not been able to. Therefore, you can not call something a spiritual truth until you demonstrate the spiritual exists, OBJECTIVELY. Only then would a belief in the spiritual be considered a truth or knowledge. An animal exhibiting behavior conducive to its survival means that the animal is objectively more fit as compared to an animal who does not exhibit such a behavior. I don't even understand what that has to do with this discussion anyway. It's a total red herring. Again, your absolute bastardization of these basic concepts of objective/subjective, is staggering and quite telling.

Nothing about PHYSICAL reality, and that was pointed out in the OP. You don't comprehend anything other than physical reality, physical existence, material evidence. The very idea of spiritual nature is contradictory to what you believe in, and you have no way to rationalize what "spiritual existence" even means.

Neither do you understand anything other than physical reality, unless you are claiming that you are have a pathway to the spiritual. A belief is not a pathway. You would need a sixth sense that is able to interact with the spiritual, or a "Sensus Divinitatis." You have yet to provide evidence that humans have this sense, therefore, all they have is belief, which is not evidence of anything. Don't tell me what I believe or don't believe. The very idea of spiritual nature is not contradictory to what I believe in at all. It would be supplemental to a physical universe. There is no evidence for such an existence, and your belief, nor that of billions of others, will never logically amount to ANY evidence at all. This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from popularity. You have failed to refute this or address this at all. You simply gloss it over, and re-assert the veracity of your OP, like a child plugging his ears, stamping his feet, and screaming "NO!"

Well I was being sarcastic in my response, but I would say that people CAN connect spiritually through appreciation of nature.

How? Are you positing a divine sense? You need to show that this sense exists on the human body, or in the human brain. There is no scientific evidence for such a sense. Until you do, all you have is a belief, like any other, which is not evidence. If belief was evidence, then if I believed I could fly, that would be evidence I could fly? No. Yet, for some reason, you think that more people believing something makes it true. If this were so, what is the number of people you need until something is true? There must be a cut-off, and yet you haven't explained this. Is it ten billion, 20 billion? How many? Your logic is quite terrible, and you don't realize it.

Not all humans are, you most certainly are not. I don't believe this was a claim I have ever made. You DO have the ABILITY to spiritually connect, you just choose not to use it.

Again you are positing that I have a divine sense, but you haven't' demonstrated this sense to exist.

Look you dishonest little fuck... YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective!" Now you are attempting to pretend that I said this? The POINT is conceded, you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about before, and now you've come to your senses. Glad I could school your ass on that.

Its okay boo-boo. Your idiocy is really easy to exploit. Your reading comprehension is very poor. I'm not going to repeat myself. I consider the point conceded and expect you not to rehash this, since you keep on losing every point you try to advance.

ALL "evidence" is subjective, I am sorry if you don't get that. That a fossil exists, is not subjective, it either DOES or DOESN'T exist. Whether a fossil "PROVES" something, is indeed, SUBJECTIVE! Now you can dance around and pretend like I have taken your idiotic position, like you were doing before, and you can post loads of crap to support that fantasy, but that's not what my position was.... YOU said: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective," and I challenged you on that. You are STILL trying to claim, one minute, that it isn't subjective, but in the next paragraph, explaining how it IS subjective sometimes. You're full of shit, plain and simple.

I have proven that evidence is not necessarily subjective, yet you continue with the same old tired line. I hear this all the time from theists. If evidence is necessarily subjective, then you have no claim to your own "spiritual evidence" pointing to anything objectively existing. If you admit that it doesn't exist objectively, then it only exists in your mind, which means it doesn't actually exist. You have backed yourself into a logical corner from which you can not now escape. I expect you to concede your points, logically, but as you are entirely illogical, I know that you will not. A discussion about evidence is one of epistemology, not the subject/object problem.

You are jumping around with your position, that's why! One minute, you tell us that evidence is not subjective, by definition... unless of course, it's "spiritual evidence" then it magically become subjective! Then you are dancing away from that claim, then back to it again, and claiming that I have taken your position and you've proven me wrong. You're fucking mental!

I knew you were going to take a 2nd grader's stance on this. I shouldn't have expected someone of your mental incapacity to be able to understand reality on reality's terms. I NEVER SAID EVIDENCE CAN'T BE SUBJECTIVE. I said it is not necessarily subjective, because it is not in the definition. Stop stretching my words! I explained this to you clearly in my last post, yet you continuously and dishonestly assert that I am saying something I did not, because at this point, its all you think you have on me. I advise you to let go of it, as you are wrong her as well. Admittedly, i put it a little vaguely at first. I should have said, "Evidence is not necessarily subjective, by definition," which is what I meant. Regardless, I explained my position clearly, and twice in the last post, and yet you hold me to a position I do not myself hold. This is a straw-man. You misunderstood my position to begin with, and upon clarification, refuse to accept said clarification for purposes of rhetoric and mockery. You really are a little child.

But... Yes, I have.

You haven't done anything of note in this entire thread. You haven't convinced anyone of your proposition, and only preach to the choir which consist of the fools who already believe your conclusion. Your reasoning is invalid and unsound, and does not follow from your ridiculous premises.

YOU SAID: "Evidence, by definition, is not subjective." That is a direct quote from you, and I will go find the fucking post if you need me to, but that IS WHAT YOU SAID!

Find me where a definition of "evidence" that explicitly indicates the quality of it being "subjective." When you can't, you will understand what I meant, which is a true statement. I will try for a third time, because dealing with someone so mentally inept is kind of fun, but only because your pride is astounding and you deserve a hard fall: Nowhere in the definition of evidence, is the concept of subjectivity found. Therefore, by definition, evidence is not subjective. I admit to putting it vaguely, but this was merely a reaction to your having said that by definition, evidence WAS subjective, when it isn't. It is nowhere indicated in the definition. You don't reach the ideas of subjectivity or objectivity until you get to the different kinds of evidence. If we are talking about anecdotal evidence, then it is 100% subjective. If we are talking about empirical evidence, then it is not, and points to something that exists objectively. Get it? If we have to go over this again, because you decided to say that evidence is necessarily subjective, while at the same time saying evidence can be either subjective or objective (I can go find it), then you are a fucking asshat.

"Subjective" means "subject to our interpretation and evaluation." ALL evidence fits this definition, because ALL evidence has to be weighed on it's own merit... it doesn't become a fact by you proclaiming it evidence. If what you said were true, no one could ever challenge any evidence, it would all be empirical and unchallengeable. All evidence can be subjectively evaluated and found to be "objective and reasonable" or not so much, it depends on the evidence and perception of the evidence in question.

Subjective means mind-dependant, and by logical consequence, it is subject to our interpretation and evaluation. However, this doesn't mean that evidence is subjective. This would mean evidence only exists in the mind, but this is not true. This would only be anecdotal evidence. However, whether one considers something to be evidence, IS subjective, but this says nothing about the existential condition of empirical or anecdotal evidence. Empirical evidence is available to the senses, anecdotal evidence is not. The dispute over what to call evidence is epistemology. Something that is reliably demonstrated to be evidence of something else, must be empirical, otherwise it is simply heresay, which is all you have. I can't believe how many times you need to be explained things! It's crazy.

It does explain a lot about your mental rationality. If you presume that all evidence is unassailable fact that can't be challenged, no fucking telling what all you believe! There is evidence of UFOs and aliens... so I guess, since "evidence is, by definition, not subjective," that means everything claimed to be evidence of UFOs proves UFOs and aliens visit routinely? No need to question it, the evidence is not subjective, it can't be challenged subjectively.

You are twisting my words all around. I never said evidence is an unassailable fact. Evidence is used to determine what is true about objective reality, as best as possible. Our reasoning about what is and is not evidence and what we can call evidence, IS SUBJECTIVE. This relates to an individual's epistemology. However, the evidence itself, can not be called subjective, especially if it is claimed to be demonstrable of something objective. Given your premises, the very least you would need to prove, is that humans have a sixth sense which allows them to interact with the divine or spiritual and give them knowledge of the divine/spiritual realm. This divine sense is something that would exist in physical reality, within the human body somewhere, and could be studied empirically. Can you cite one scientific, peer-reviwed paper that confirms the existence of this sixth divine sense? No, because it doesn't exist. Therefore, you can't logically prove that any human, ever, was actually interacting with anything outside of its own mind.

WRONG. It is based on faith in spiritual evidence, which you reject. Again, I am not a theistic fundamentalist, we have covered this lie repeatedly, and you insist on continuing to assert it. Why is that? Is it because you feel more comfortable arguing this subject with a theist instead of an atheist? Or is it because an atheist is kicking your ass up one side of this board and down the other, making you say all kinds of stupid shit you have to run away from?

"Faith" in spiritual evidence is a contradiction. Faith is defined as belief without evidence, therefore, if you are citing faith, you have no evidence, by definition. Get yourself some academic help. You are making a mess of this place.

I see this mistake with theists all the time. They claim everything is a result of faith, simply because that is their epistemology and how they have garnered knowledge. In fact, it is not knowledge, simply their belief that they have knowledge. How hilarious that you would try to consider yourself an atheist, yet talk of faith epistemologies while making a "definitive" argument for god. Let me get this straight: you're an atheist, yet have bound yourself with some responsibility to prove god and argue it with your "fellow atheists"? I find this hard to believe. You are either seriously confused, have some mental issues, or are just a poe.

Spiritual faith is not based on intuition, it is based on understanding of a connection that is real, and has been made by humans for all their existence. You've not refuted this valid point, and you can't.

You have to provide sound reasoning and evidence of your point. My refutation consists of pointing out this obvious fact, which I've done, and you have failed to respond to. You continue to re-assert your points, as if you haven't before, and yet somehow, on this time around, it is going to make a difference. This is the sign of someone inflexible and un-dynamic. In others, dumb.

Insults aside, which you actually deserve after all of this, you have not proved that the connection is real. This is the nexus of the whole argument. Again, you would need humans to have a "sense" of the divine somewhere on our physical body. If it doesn't exist, then you can't claim the connection is real. It really is that simple. Prove a divine sense. Even then, you haven't proven the spiritual realm exists, logically, but it would be a start. So far, you haven't even gotten off ground with your grandiose assumptions.

Airplanes were the product of inspiration, which comes from spiritual nature. Shall we run down the lengthy list of 'epistemologies' from science that have been absolutely wrong? This is precisely why the Scientific Method doesn't involve itself with drawing conclusions, and instead, continues to ask questions. Science predicts probability, and you have taken that fact and spun it into a belief system that can't be questioned. It's a vulgar perversion of science itself.

Another assertion without evidence of any kind. Prove that inspiration comes from spiritual nature. Until then, don't make such asinine claims. Inspiration is a product of motivation, which is perfectly explainable in a naturalistic, atheistic universe, as it would be something necessitated by evolution for us to do anything successful. It is so intrinsic to our survival, that to attribute to the spiritual is a laughable claim at this point. You just want to hog anything good for the "spiritual" without any evidence whatsoever.

What is this lengthy list of "scientific epistemologies" of which you speak that have been wrong? Can you name one? Science being wrong is celebrated in scientific epistemology. The fact that you are on your computer is a because scientific epistemologies, which never grants certainty, and accepts and enjoys being wrong, because that means further investigation is required. Point in case, The Higgs Boson. Most of the researchers were hoping it wouldn't be found, because that would mean a fundamental flaw in the Standard Model, and would lead to fundamentally new understanding of the universe, which would mean greater discovery than that of the Higgs itself. Science is honest. Theistic epistemology is not.

NO... If you are going to state that spiritual nature does not exist, you have to prove that statement true. Those who accept spiritual nature, have no problem providing all the evidence they need to believe it is true. YOU are the one claiming, it is not true, and is a figment of our imagination, and so the burden of proof is on you, to prove your statement. Of course, you can't prove it, you will run from the challenge, claiming you can never prove a negative.... well then, shut the fuck up with the claims and admit that it's possible spiritual nature does exist, since you can't prove it doesn't.

If there is so much spiritual evidence, PROVIDE SOME. So far, you have provided none, and simply expect us to take your claims on faith. That is not going to happen. Trying to prove the spiritual with the spiritual, is begging the question. What THIS MEANS, since you don't seem to want to use a quick google search, is that your conclusion is contained in your premise, thus making the argument invalid structurally. Again, you fail to reach your conclusion. So far, we have the following logical fallacies with your argument: begging the question (circular reasoning), a causal fallacy (com hoc ergo propter hoc or "causation implies causation"), argument from popularity, proof by assertion, and ad hominem's (saying it is my fault that I don't see your evidence). That's five. I'm sure there are more, but this just off the top of my little head.

"Proof" is just like evidence, it is SUBJECTIVE, and depends on the individual's perception. If I see a ghost in my bedroom, that is PROOF to me that a ghost was present, it may NOT be PROOF to you. I'm sorry if your retard brain can't grasp that, but it's true. My OP "proves" god's existence, but you don't accept the evidence, therefore, you don't believe I have proven anything. Indeed, my OP presents both evidence and proof that is subjective, it is subject to personal evaluation based on whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.

Definition of proof

n.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
7. Printing
a. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
b. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
8.
a. A trial photographic print.
b. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
9. Archaic Proven impenetrability: "I was clothed in Armor of proof" (John Bunyan).
adj.
1. Fully or successfully resistant; impervious. Often used in combination: waterproof watches; a fireproof cellar door.
2. Of standard alcoholic strength.
3. Used in proving or making corrections.
v. proofed, proof·ing, proofs
v.tr.
1. Printing
a. To make a trial impression of (printed or engraved matter).
b. To proofread (copy).
2.
a. To activate (dormant dry yeast) by adding water.
b. To work (dough) into proper lightness.
3. To treat so as to make resistant: proof a fabric against shrinkage.
v.intr.
1. Printing To proofread.
2. To become properly light for cooking: The batter proofed overnight.

If you can find "subjective" anywhere in this definition, please point it out to me, because I can't find it. You mean be able to get away with saying that everything is subjective, at best, in some philosophical sense. However, and again, if you deny the fact of objective reality existing at all, then you concede your argument, and admit that you don't believe any reality exists outside of your own mind. This is known as solipsism. Take youre pick. Both have their consequences, neither of which look good for you. Find us a proof that merely demonstrates something subjective. Actually, an attempt was made with the a priori proof known as the Ontological Argument for the Existence of god. However, this still concluded with god existing objectively, in the actual universe. It simply makes deductions from a priori premises, which is why it fails.

Wow, you sure do devote an awful lot of your personal time, debating a "moron." What does that say about you? Here again, you are trying to establish that the ONLY type of "evidence" is physical in nature. I agree, physical evidence is physical in nature, but it has nothing to do with spiritual evidence, which is not physical in nature. Spiritual nature is also not objective physical reality, or it would be physical nature. It is every bit as spiritually "real" as physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists, because it doesn't conform to physical objectivity.

Considering how many times you've called me an idiot, you also devote an awful lot of your personal time to debating an idiot, or an asshole, or whatever else you've called me. Odd that you would attempt to mock me for something you yourself are simultaneously doing! You really are A MORON! Why I would debate a moron? Obviously, because it makes me feel smart! It feeds my ego. Duh!!!

I never said anything about evidence only being physical. You are putting words in my mouth. At best, I am saying we live in a physical universe, therefore the only EMPIRICAL evidence we have ever found is physical. If you don't have empirical evidence, then you don't have an argument. That doesn't mean it has to be physical, as this is based on induction is isn't necessarily the case, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find non-physical empirical evidence. If you did, you've have won the nobel and wouldn't be on a fucking online debate forum debating atheists anonymously. Also, I never equated objective reality to the physical. You did, and incorrectly. Nor did I ever say that evidence is defined by it being physical. I simply asked for any evidence at all, and you fail to provide any.

We are NOT "only capable of interacting with physical reality," as you said. Humans are capable of interacting with spiritual nature, and have done so for all their existence, and this is the defining attribute of our species because of the wonders it has enabled in humanity itself. In fact, I will argue that humans DO have another sense, a spiritual sense, which other living things don't have, and which makes us unique among all living things. The fact that you dismiss 70k years of intrinsic defining behavior in a species of life, shows that you have completely abandoned science and everything Darwin theorized, as well as everything we know about nature.

Another proof by assertion. Evidence please! "The wonders it has enabled in humanity"? Oh, you mean like the myriad wars in the name of religious belief? You would dare call that a wonder? The only "wonders" have been a result of scientific knowledge and inquiry. Everything to do with spirituality has been self-serving, narcissistic, and mostly evil with advancing humanity in any meaningful way.

Go read some Aristotle and Plato, since you seem to be waxing philosophical all the sudden. Both of these men, (who invented science, btw), were avid believers in a spiritual realm, something beyond the physical existence and presence we realize. Some of the stuff they theorized regarding that, has since been disproven, but the point is... these are among history's greatest minds.

Aristotle invented the idea of natural inquiry, but it wasn't science as we would call it, it was "natural philosophy," or an attempt to explain the world WITHOUT supernatural elements. It wasn't modern science and Aristotle was wrong about everything he thought, such as the motion of objects. Plato had nothing to do with science. The modern scientific method was developed until the 11th century by a Muslim. The fact that they believed in a spiritual realm, again, is not evidence of a spiritual realm. When you stop making this logical leap, you will understand why your OP is complete and utter horse shit topped with shit sprinkles.

We DO know about the spiritual realm, we connect to it daily, most of us. We've been doing it since we 'discovered fire' and you can't dispute that evidence. People such as yourself, have been around just as long, claiming there is nothing to it, it's hocus pocus, it's imagination, it's delusional, it's all in our heads... but the attribute remains as strong in humans as ever.

You have yet to prove that we connect to a spiritual realm daily, and that it is any more than a belief, just like any other. This is a huge claim, and you're only evidence is human belief itself. Were you to present this to a philosophy or a science or a religious teacher (who was honest), they would laugh in your face.

So now we are back to flip-flopping around on whether evidence is subjective? I'm really getting tired of hearing your spin... You were wrong when you stated that "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and I have proven you wrong sufficiently. All the little trick ponies in the world, are not going to spin you out of this one. My evidence is not "anecdotal" ...ask any of the billions of people who will testify to my evidence. All of us, believe our spiritual evidence is empirical, if we didn't believe that, we couldn't be spiritual people. Again, what we are running into, is what I defined in the OP as a failure on your part, to recognize spiritual nature. That is the problem, not the type of evidence. You want to hold court on the physical evidence for the physical existence of god, and it is a superfluous argument no one has ever made. You look like a clown.

The only clown here, is you, "Big Shoes." Hold on. You just said, "My evidence is not anecdotal... ask any of the billions of people who will testify to my evidence."

This is a self-refuting statement. In asking billions of people, that would make it anecdotal evidence, necessarily.

I really want to laugh in your face, in text, right now. Or, as you put, "chortle." Suffice it to say, I am laughing at you for what you just wrote.

Special pleading is what you are doing. There is no physical standard for spiritual nature, and you are pleading for there to be one. You would indeed make a great lawyer arguing a court case over the physical evidence for the physical existence of god.... unfortunately, that is not the debate.

You don't know what special pleading is, so just stop pretending to. It is obvious you have no idea what you are doing with this concept.

My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.

Again, it is not my burden to prove that the spiritual nature doesn't exist. It is your burden to prove that it does. Therefore, I don't need empirical evidence, which according is irrelevant in this case. Since this spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans in any way, you have yet to answer how humans KNOW there is a spiritual realm. Belief is not evidence, and belief is not knowledge, yet you are claiming knowledge about the spiritual in making this claim. I can't wait to hear more of your vapid bullshit.

Again.... You can NOT make a definitive statement, without supporting that statement. I have provided my proof of spiritual existence, it's in the OP for all to read, and you have done nothing to refute anything I have said, only to reinforce several points I made. You continue to completely misinterpret plain English that I type, like now you are claiming that I've said the spiritual realm doesn't interact with humans... where the fuck did you get that from? I never said it. The spiritual realm does indeed interact to those who believe in it and practice spiritual connection to it. If it didn't, there wouldn't be the 70k year history of it in mankind.

Yes, I can make a definitive statement. Where are you getting these rules from, which you don't apply to yourself? If the spiritual realm interacts with the physical, then WE WOULD EXPECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. This is basic logic. Explain how an interaction with another system wouldn't leave a trace? Please. Until you do, you're blatant contradiction doesn't go away simply by ignoring. At the very least, you have to posit a divine sense with which humans can sense this interaction or perturbation among our physical realm, which you have failed to provide. Again, you keep on re-asserting your tired-ass claims and faulty logic. Philosophically, your "argument" is very, very poor, indeed. Hate to bust your ego, pal.

Now, the spiritual realm doesn't interact with YOU, obviously. But this is probably due to the fact that you deny it exists and think it's all a bunch of nonsense that humans made up. However, there are literally more people than you would ever be able to count, who profess a deep and profound belief and understanding of a spiritual realm.

The spiritual realm doesn't interact with you, either. This is simply your belief. You have yet to prove anything real about the spiritual to anyone but yourself.

If you are going to make the statement that Spiritual Nature is made up delusion and imagination, it is up to you to prove that. If you can't prove that, then you can't make that argument, no matter how you dress it up and pretend it has been made. You can't say that spiritual evidence is "anecdotal" because it doesn't conform to physical criteria, that is illogical, and you've not supported your argument with anything rational. Spiritual evidence is empirical to those who believe in spiritual nature. Evidence is subjective, isn't it?

I can prove that the belief in the spiritual is a delusion, at least as far you have defined, or actually, not defined it. Since you make this so easy, it is easy to disprove. No evidence has ever been presented by you, and human beings are fallible creatures with built-in cognitive biases, therefore the conclusion that the spiritual exists is not at all guaranteed. Have a nice day, idiot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya.

You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.

They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.

That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

 

[newpolitics]

It doesn't follow logically that because X amount of people believe Y to be true, Y is therefore true.

 

[Hollie]

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.

That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.

That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

 

[newpolitics]

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

It's all a grand conspiracy! It must be the DEVIL! Nevermind that god would have endowed us with the capacity to reason and now he wants us to ignore that capacity! What a great and honest god to have done so!

YWC, you're position is a bunch of bollocks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie there is good worthy science being practiced but there is also bad science being taught lead by Ideological leaders.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

It's all a grand conspiracy! It must be the DEVIL! Nevermind that god would have endowed us with the capacity to reason and now he wants us to ignore that capacity! What a great and honest god to have done so!

YWC, you're position is a bunch of bollocks.

A typical poor me response not willing to look at the facts. That is exactly why this nonsense continues being taught in schools.

 

[Hollie]

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

Yes there are. An important strategy would be to configure a major coup whereby converting Harun Yahya to christianity would provide a powerful ally in the fight against atheistic evilutionist scientists.

I would think that you would be an appropriate person to take the lead in that effort. Rank has its privileges and you could rise to General of The Crusaders, Conversion Brigade, Division of the Religiously Insane.