Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

If you know how I feel about the dating methods why would I have to explain this to you ?

How you feel about things is unimportant. Facts are important and you are clearly divorced from any recognition of facts.

You're feelings about a 6,000 year old earth are laughable.

bump

I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.

 

[daws101]

I never said Aborigine's were not 100% Homo Sapiens dip shit. I believe neanderthals and Aborigine's are 100% human. I believe they were all once isolated.

Funny they are believing now they all came out of the middle east supporting the bible so called myth.

once again it's you belief that's false.
2.NOVA | Are Neanderthals Human?

3.Did the first humans come out of Middle East?
Modern man may have evolved in the Middle East rather than Africa, it has been claimed, after the discovery of remains said to be more than 400,000 years old.
.

560315TelegraphPlayer_8228030.
By Peter Hutchison
8:00AM GMT 28 Dec 2010
Israeli researchers claimed to have found eight human-like teeth in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin, 10 miles from Israel's Ben Gurion airport.

Archaeologists from Tel Aviv University said the teeth were 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, which would make them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered in the world.

If true it overturns the belief that homo sapiens, the direct descendant of modern man, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

According to the “Out of Africa” theory, homo sapiens gradually migrated north, through the Middle East, to Europe and Asia between 70,000 and 50,000 years ago.

But in recent years discoveries in Spain and China have also questioned the theory that man originated in Africa.

The latest findings, published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, said the size and shape of the teeth were very similar to those of modern man.

Prof Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University also found evidence of the use of fire, hunting, and the cutting and mining of raw materials to produce flint tools, which suggested a sophisticated form of society.

They said further research was needed to solidify their claim but if proven it “changes the whole picture of evolution”. Did the first humans come out of Middle East? - Telegraph
nowhere do the articles even hint at supporting the bible myth, that's you reading in what's not there.

My theory they are all humans that interbred they may have different features but that does not prove they are not human.

Over time it will be proven the origins of humans will be the middle east. I would say Israel because that was the promised land for the Israelites.

you have a rich fantasy life..
it's funny how guys like you who make sweeping declarations are without fail, proven wrong.

 

[daws101]

If you know how I feel about the dating methods why would I have to explain this to you ?

you can't explain it rationally, you just make excuses that don't fit the facts.

How many times must I point out the problems with the dating methods ? Believe as you wish.

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

 

[daws101]

How you feel about things is unimportant. Facts are important and you are clearly divorced from any recognition of facts.

You're feelings about a 6,000 year old earth are laughable.

bump

I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.

what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .

 

[Youwerecreated]

you can't explain it rationally, you just make excuses that don't fit the facts.

How many times must I point out the problems with the dating methods ? Believe as you wish.

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bump

I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.

what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .

How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

At this point we have reached an impasse. Science has established in repeatable peer reviewed experiments that the Theory of Relativity and the Space-Time Continuum are factual and measurable. You continue to see time as nothing more than a simple mechanical stopwatch in spite of all of the evidence that it is far more complex in reality.

While this debate was enjoyable there is no point in continuing if you refuse to recognize the established facts. Have a nice day.

You have consistently failed to show why the GTR time-space would avoid the first moment problem. My understanding of it is that it does not.

If you cant argue your case then fine, admit it and walk away, but don't blame me as though I am too dense to grasp what you refuse to essplain, dear.

Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional.

Then I apologize, but yes, I definitely had that impression.

As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does NOT exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the PAST as well as the future. With an INFINITE PAST there is no "first moment" ever.

Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has ALWAYS existed in the PAST just as it will always exist in the future.

No, it is not just me, but aside from that....

You are simply plopping the entire infinite timeline into being with one fell swoop and saying ITs HERE, but we are in a time flow that does not accommodate such a model of time.

Lets look at Cartesian grid, say the X axis. Starting at 0 and going back toward an infinite limit is a process that never reaches the limit. To assume one could in real time, brings up what is often referred to as 'infinite regression fallacy'. If we are modeling a real time span going back and not simply taking an abstract limit value all at one time we can never reach negative infinity since there is no point to arrive at. There is always at least one more.

Similarly were we to go back in time in the real world, there is never a point in time that we reach negative infinity, because there is no final point. We would just go on for ever.

Now, reversing this process, we see that we can never arrive at 0 from negative infinity because there is no starting point. There is always one point further back, and thus we can never reach 0 from a negative infinite limit.

In simpler terms, we can say that there is no plausible way to have points in the real time line if there is not beginning to the time line, which is what we have if the past recedes into an infinite unbeginning.


Hope that is clear.

 

[Hollie]

I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.

what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .

How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?

There are several dating methods that can be used to coordinate the results.

Goofy conspiracy theories aren't going to help you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am skeptical on the existence of spirits, because I base most if not all of my view on objective evidence that can be discerned through the five senses. Everything you have said is not debatable is indeed debateable and will continue to be so; saying that it is not is dangerous and borders on fascism.

Even though spirits cannot be proven through the scientific method, let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is true. You are saying that spirits exist. You are opening a massive, massive door.

How many spirits are there?
Are there water spirits? Fire spirits? Light and dark spirits?
Do they have genitalia or not? Are they like the angels?
Are they able to procreate? Do they give people powers?
Can they be harnessed for energy? Can they be farmed?
What is their weight? Their size? Dimensions? Colors?
How do they exist without being seen?
Is Golden Sun based on actual events?
How do they nest? May we hunt them? What is their flavor?
Their intellect: how high? Do they know more than one language?
Are they capable of destroying our world?
Can spiritualists collect and battle them like trainers do their Pokemon?

The questions go on, ad nauseum.

I think you have tremendous belief in the notion of spirits, Boss, but I don't think you know for sure whether they exist or not. If they can be discerned through science, I would like to know, please.

If you still believe that spirits exist, why not angels and demons? Gods? Everything else?

Imagine someone else. Imagine he says and believes everything you believe and say, except that you've swapped out spirits for any other kind of supernatural being.

And back to the numbers part, just because a lot of people believe something... that doesn't mean it's true. That's just logic. Correlation isn't causation. If many people believe something, they may be right... but saying that because most people believe something then it must be right is absurd.

Well, first of all, I have no idea what you're talking about with "spirits" ...I've not mentioned these. Do you mean like aberrations and ghosts? I don't know if those exist or not, and I've not claimed they do, nor made a case for them. Spiritual nature is what I argued, and this doesn't necessarily include spirits.

Now let's be honest, you are skeptical regarding spiritual nature because it lacks physical confirmation. You can't detect it with your five senses, therefore, you assume it doesn't exist or doesn't have presence. I'll raise these questions again... Do you know which plants to pollinate? Can you coordinate billions of people to construct a colony through telepathic instructions, where each individual knows their role and does it? Bees and ants have the 'senses' to do these things and more. So are human's 5 senses all there is in the universe?

We have, what can be called, a "sixth sense" of spiritual connection. Humans are the only species with the ability to connect spiritually, and it is the secret to our success as a species. To utilize this sense, you have to first believe in spiritual nature, if you've closed your mind to the possibility, you can't make spiritual connection. If you intentionally blindfolded yourself for many years, you would lose your ability to see. Would that mean that vision is not real?

This is a contentious issue, and first and foremost I want you to know that I'm not personally attacking you nor do I have any ill-will towards you. It is the very specific notions and concepts themselves that I take issue with. You I respect; some of your arguments I criticize.

My prior response to you about spirits was because you discussed the notion of spirituality, which in itself is a very brad definition. One could think it deals in the existence of spirits. If you open the door of discussion on the notion of spirits, you open a very wide door indeed. Thus, my somewhat sarcastic criticism. Spiritualism demands that spirits exist, and so I questioned and continue to question as much as I can the assertion that spirits exist. I don't see how spiritual nature cannot include the existence of spirits: Gods, sure, but not even spirits? If spiritualism doesn't involve spirits, why even have the word "spirit" in spiritualism?

For a moment I may have confused you with Jimbowie, who in this thread states the very mind is a spirit. Looking back, I did not, but could easily have. Both of your assertions on spirits deserve more questions, with general respect.

Your argument about ants and bees is interesting, but those creatures likely do their work due to instinct. I may be wrong, though, and that deserves as much fair research as it can get. Boss, I take comfort in what I can know. Knowledge, not belief, is the surest foundation for one to rest on. If we leave our sturdy foundation of concrete knowledge, we march on the shifting sands of subjectivity, which may very well slow us down or drag us under.

I cannot believe what I can't discern. This is why I don't believe in spirits, or gods, or demons, or angels, or monsters, or legends, or aliens, etc. Actually, there may do exist "alien" life, if indeed Earth is not the only life-sustaining rock in all the planets, galaxies, universes...

It is nice discussing and debating with you, Boss. You've got me in a more inquisitive mood now. ;-)

will get back to this

 

[JimBowie1958]

wrong I've made no unsupported assertions .
I did make one statement of fact:"there can be no correct interpretation as there are no original texts to interpret from .
all you're doing is interpreting an interpretation of an interpretation."-ME

This is hilarious. You say that you made no unwarranted assertions except for a 'fact' that you never provide support for.

Then you follow with....



lol, you just cant make up this shit. Dawes you are the dumbest bitch on these boards, though Starkey and a few other do give you competition.

'An appeal to advantage is a rhetorical device in which the speaker encourages his or her audience to perform some action by representing that action as being in the audience's best interest.
An appeal to advantage can also be a request from someone in a position of power to someone who is in a socially subordinate position; the request is specifically for the subordinate to perform an act contrary to the subordinate's wishes, such that the subordinate is forced to commit the act in order to satisfy a more significant need. The appeal is specifically most expedient or advantageous to the person in power, but is also presented as forwarding the subordinate's interests in some significant way.

the above is not one of them.

Red herring much? ROFLMAO

There is no need to support my statement it stands on it own.
QUOTE]

No it does not stand alone. That you cannot grasp what an unwarranted assertion is, I see no more point to discussing this subject with you.

 

[Hollie]

How you feel about things is unimportant. Facts are important and you are clearly divorced from any recognition of facts.

You're feelings about a 6,000 year old earth are laughable.

bump

I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.

It only seems obvious to you because you have a need to believe such nonsense.

An ancient planet earth creates a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables as precisely that: tales and fables.

Your religious fanaticism is driven by a need to protect your dogma. Considering how much you have to lose with the fact of an ancient planet, you are forced to blather on about biblical literalism. An ancient planet being true confirms evolution being true which in turn means there was no biblical Adam and Eve, magic snakes and fruit theft. No Adam and Eve means there is no original sin. No original sin negates any need for salvation. No need for salvation means there is no need for Heyzeus H. Christ or Christianity. This is why you fundies fight tooth and nail, using any means necessary to protect your dogma.

Oh, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

 

[Hollie]

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Please present your scientific evidence to support this theory. Until then, you are simply making a "because I say so" argument. There is nothing any more complex about human brain structure (or function) than chimps, if you believe that is true, you need to present evidence, otherwise, you are making a "because I say so" argument.

Humans do have abstract thought, but this doesn't come from special brains that are different from all other primates. It comes from the human's ability to spiritually connect. You're free to believe in your "special brain theory" but until you can back it up with some science, it has no basis other than your word. We see no evidence of other upper primates practicing even the most primitive forms of spirituality, even though they have the same brain structure and function as humans.

The 6,000 year-old Earth thing is real old. I would say, it's probably less than 2% of Christians who ascribe to this particular belief, yet it is repeated ad nauseum by Atheists, in almost every thread where religious arguments break out. Now, I am real sorry that some people believe this, but then... some people believe humans have special brain structure.

Here are a couple of articles to support my comments. There are other, more detailed and specific materials available but these provided a good overview.

Brains of Neanderthals and modern humans developed differently


Why Homo sapiens won the battle of human survival: Neanderthals had larger eyes but less brain power to make decisions | Mail Online

So similarly, present the peer-reviewed data that supports the evidence for your claimed supernatural spirit worlds.

 

[daws101]

How many times must I point out the problems with the dating methods ? Believe as you wish.

there are no real problems with dating methods .
you just wish there were.

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.

 

[daws101]

I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old ,am I certain ?no it should seem obvious.

what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .

How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?

even if it were..that's no proof your fantasy is correct or the only one besides evolution.
how hard is that to comprehend?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I love how this pompous know-it-all calls a survey of 18k people "superficial" but because ONE, that's right ONE, Mongo Man 40,000 years ago in Australia was for the first time covered in red ochre in his grave and that means that everyone in the entire world for 70k years was strongly spiritual.

Apparently for the first 30k years people were not spiritual because none of them were buried with red ochre before Mongo Man. BTW, Mongo Lady, the same age as Mongo Man, was not covered in red ochre, she was cremated, so women did not become spiritual until later.

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?.

Not at all. It implies that mankind wasnt capable of understanding what God was prior to that. If God exists, He would have existed entirely independently of the ability of early humanoids to believe in Him.

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Well, you need to discuss that with YEC, which I am not.

 

[daws101]

This is hilarious. You say that you made no unwarranted assertions except for a 'fact' that you never provide support for.

Then you follow with....



lol, you just cant make up this shit. Dawes you are the dumbest bitch on these boards, though Starkey and a few other do give you competition.



Red herring much? ROFLMAO

There is no need to support my statement it stands on it own.
QUOTE]

No it does not stand alone. That you cannot grasp what an unwarranted assertion is, I see no more point to discussing this subject with you.

Is it just me or does that just scream dodge.
I just posted support, being wrong all the time seem to be a habit with you guys.
it's a simple statement of fact. there are no original copies of the bible in existence so any interpretation of the text is from many generations of copies .. yes or no?

 

[JimBowie1958]

what obvious is you are wrong. even if the various dating methods were out by even a billion years ,it's no proof your fantasy is correct .

How do you know it would only be off by a billion years if the dating methods are flawed ?

even if it were..that's no proof your fantasy is correct or the only one besides evolution.
how hard is that to comprehend?

Again, demonstrating your condescending bullshit.

It just never stops with you, but that is because you are too stupid to realize that you have lost.

 

[daws101]

Mankind has been, according to archeological evidence, a spiritual creature believing in an after life at least since Neanderthal man.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?.

Not at all. It implies that mankind wasnt capable of understanding what God was prior to that. If God exists, He would have existed entirely independently of the ability of early humanoids to believe in Him.

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Well, you need to discuss that with YEC, which I am not.

so your not the expert on everything you project yourself to be..
I kinda knew that already.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no need to support my statement it stands on it own.
QUOTE]

No it does not stand alone. That you cannot grasp what an unwarranted assertion is, I see no more point to discussing this subject with you.

Is it just me or does that just scream dodge.
I just posted support, being wrong all the time seem to be a habit with you guys.
it's a simple statement of fact. there are no original copies of the bible in existence so any interpretation of the text is from many generations of copies .. yes or no?

Dude you cant even do attributions right, much less prove anything here.

You make an unwarranted assertion, which means you give no proof/reason/fact for what you assert, almost as though the more often you say it you score points and whoever has the highest score 'wins' or some stupid shit like that.

No, most of the people on this thread are here to exchange thoughts and ideas, or are curious how some people think. I disagree with the YECs here, but I do so respectfully, as I also try to do with Derido and others.

You though, have been demonstrated repeatedly to lie, twist what people say, make stupid jokes and act like you have won the video game.

You are a stupid little ass hole. Go fuck yourself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes. It required the more complex brain structure of homo sapiens to develop abstract concepts such as inventions of gawds. Would this suggest that there were no gawds prior to homo sapiens?.

Not at all. It implies that mankind wasnt capable of understanding what God was prior to that. If God exists, He would have existed entirely independently of the ability of early humanoids to believe in Him.

Oddly, a 6,000 year old earth would clash with such timelines as Neanderthal man. Yet another conspiracy of an old earth that has perpetrated by those atheistic evilutionists.

Well, you need to discuss that with YEC, which I am not.

so your not the expert on everything you project yourself to be..
I kinda knew that already.

I do not project any such thing. I usually give links to my sources and I do not claim to be an authority.

Again, you stupidity betrays you.