Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

Explain.

already have,did my answer have one too many multi syllabic words?

If we go back through the thread this claim is false.

thanks, for proving my point.
if you're gonna make shit up, the least you could do is be original.

 

[Montrovant]

Holy crap, the arrogant presumption!

You make pains to say you do not believe in organized religion, yet seem to make a lot of the same arguments and assumptions.

What assumptions have I made? You didn't stipulate anything. You lodged a protest, but failed to say what you were protesting. I have made NO religious argument here, and I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. It sounds like you simply want to lash out at me because you can't come up with anything to throw at me that I don't knock out of the park.

That someone would not argue against something they do not believe in is one of the most ridiculous fallacies in religious argument.

What is the point of arguing about something that doesn't exist?



And some people will lie, even to themselves, and claim they don't believe in god, when they really do.



I'm sorry, but please show me where I've said "because I say so" in any argument I have made in this thread? How about stop being dishonest? YOU are the one presenting circular logic, when you contend that 'man asks why because man can ask why.' Nothing has been vaguely defined, we've been over every definition of each word in the OP, so that there is clear understanding of what we are debating. The thread is nearly 2k posts long, and I have repeatedly clarified and explained every definition at least twice.

Humans have ALWAYS believed in higher powers, it's our most defining attribute.



I never said that humans die if they don't practice spirituality. Sorry if you thought you had scored a point with that, but I think it's safe to say that humans can indeed reject their spiritual nature and still live. Humanity cannot survive without spirituality, that's what I said.



Doesn't matter about evidence, all animals have intelligence to some degree. We can train chimps to fly rockets into space. What other animals don't have, is spirituality. This is our most defining attribute. This isn't a debate, you don't win this, it's just a fact that you should learn, and stop trying to refute like a dumbass. Our "greater" intelligence is a manifestation of our spirituality, which is unique to our species. Our inspiration comes from spirituality, along with all the other attributes which makes us different.



The fact remains, other animals don't worry about what happens after they die. You claim humans invented spirituality to cope with this question, but other less intelligent creatures, don't seem to be plagued with this concern, and certainly not to the point of having to create some kind of security blanket so they can deal with it. The fact that we don't see any other living thing, contemplating what happens after it dies, tells me this might be related to the other unique attribute we have, spirituality. Spirituality clearly came first, and this is what prompts man to contemplate what happens after death.



Nope... not explainable through physics, or not as of now. There are some theories, but nothing is conclusive, it seems to be a mystery we've yet to unravel. It's not supernatural, I never claimed that. The point was, there are things that physics doesn't explain. Science is not infallible, and has often had to recant.

Do you see the blatant contradiction in this? "You see, the egocentricity in man, will assume there can never be any physical proof the spiritual realm exists, but we can't possibly know this. There are things in our own physical universe, we don't yet understand. Because physical sciences are unable to prove spiritual nature today, doesn't mean it will forever be this way. However, once spiritual existence is verified by physical evidence, it no longer exists as spiritual."
So are you saying the spiritual may one day be provable through physical evidence? If it is no longer spiritual once that happens, then it won't actually have been proven, will it? Actually, that entire argument makes very little sense.

I am saying that I won't say it's impossible. As I said before, I know that a spiritual nature does exist, which puts me at a distinct advantage in this debate. Now, it's possible, what I interpret as a spiritual nature, might be another alternate nature residing in a parallel dimension. Perhaps in the future, science will discover some way to confirm this thing, I have no way of knowing what we don't yet know. As of now, physical science cannot verify spiritual existence.

I think you've provided very little objective evidence, and in fact are fairly confused as to what that term means. I think your points have been contested many times, you simply reject the arguments. I think it is extremely ironic and amusing that you rail against the closed mindedness of others while you continue to be so firmly entrenched in your own views.

Even if you are correct in everything you believe, you come off as very hypocritical presenting it.

We see again, you make an allegation and don't back it up with anything. You've repeated this throughout your posts, and I honestly don't know how I am supposed to address the problems if you don't specify what they are. I began the OP with the point that we have to establish meanings to the words and have understanding of spiritual nature before we can objectively answer the question. My points have simply not been refuted. Every counter argument presented, has been shown to be flawed. Whenever I have shot down your argument, you have tried to prop it back up by insisting you disagree with me, even when you can't make a logical case for why. Then you want to claim I am being hypocritical and closed-minded. What I see, is someone who is immature, and has lost an argument, but rather than admit some good points were made, is going to act like a jackass instead.

I don't have time for jackassery.

You claim that people in this thread who say they don't believe in god actually do, then wonder what assumption you might be making.

You clearly don't understand the phrase 'it boils down to'. I was not directly quoting you saying 'because I say so', I was summarizing the basics of many of your arguments. When you argue that the spiritual exists, but those who do not believe in it cannot see it, that argument boils down to 'because I say so'. If it makes you feel better, rephrase it. Perhaps as 'trust me'?

You may think your definitions are clear, but when you define something as a thing which cannot be empirically observed, which does not exist in physical reality, it leaves you open to say nearly anything about that thing. It is your spirituality, it is god, it is a savage pink unicorn, anything you say about the spiritual realm is valid by that definition.

Evidence doesn't matter?
Yes, nearly all animals have some level of intelligence. Do you not understand variations in degree? Do you not believe that human intelligence is both greater than other animal species, and gives us the capacity to think of things most, or all, other animal species cannot?

I'm not arguing that other animals worry about what happens when they die. I'm arguing that most, if not all other animals are incapable of doing so. I have claimed that fear of death is one of the major things supernatural belief provides an answer to or at least comfort from.
I don't understand why you keep coming back to this. Why is the lack of human fear in animals evidence of spirituality? If other animals are INCAPABLE of the same kind of contemplation of death that humanity is, if they lack the intellectual capacity to fear death as we do or desire comfort as we do, how is that evidence of spirituality? You may as well say that because a tree does not worship a higher power, it is evidence of man's spiritual connection.
Again, you may be correct about the spiritual, but your arguments in favor of it are very strange!

What about black holes is unexplainable? I'm sure there's plenty we don't know, but as I understand it the current theories and evidence about black holes fits within the laws of physics. I'm no expert, and I'm honestly interested in how I'm wrong if you want to explain.
I certainly agree that science doesn't know everything and has had to change or completely recant things, and likely will many times in the future.

You haven't won this argument, nor have I, as it really cannot be won. It is entirely opinion based. You have provided what evidence you can for your beliefs, but nothing definitive. It cannot be, as by your own definition there is no tangible evidence possible for the spiritual.
Similar arguments could be made for the existence of other supernatural things, be it ghosts, or telepathy, or the gods of religions. As long as something is not observable or testable in the physical realm in which we reside, it will remain a subjective belief. Even most of those who have the spiritual connection you believe in most likely think you are wrong in many specifics, since you don't follow their particular religious beliefs.

So, I understand the belief that humanity's supernatural worship and superstition through our history must be based on something real. I simply disagree. I think it is quite possible that humans have created these beliefs without any real spiritual, magical, or supernatural forces existing. You give more weight to human belief than I do. That is unlikely to change for either of us, at least in the course of a message board discussion.

 

[Montrovant]

The same could be said for you.

All YWC did, was illustrate there is a difference of opinion regarding fossils. What we see is the typical reaction when opinions differ from yours, denigration and ridicule. As long as there are two or three of you to keep the distraction balloon in the air, and avoid the OP argument, you believe you are winning the argument. Unfortunately, denigration, ridicule and distraction, doesn't win arguments.

How ironic, considering you have dismissed religion as nothing but imagination.

You should really work on your reading comprehension, you're almost as bad as newpolitics. I have never stated that religion is "nothing but imagination." It is the manifestation of spirituality, which is not imaginary. Humans do have imagination, and have used their imagination to construct many religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that religion is "nothing but imagination."

I'm sorry, it is the imaginary beliefs created by humans to try and explain the spiritual forces they cannot understand. Would that be a more accurate description?

In either case you are calling people's religious beliefs imaginary. Feel free to spin it some more if you like.

 

[daws101]

About rock strata formation are you suggesting water is not needed ? let's get back on topic but I would like you to admit your ignorance before I go.

What has that got to do with evolution, you silly person!

Anyway, your utter ignorance is proven, yet again. Of course, strata can be formed without water! Volcanic deposits, wind-blown sand and soil are obvious examples, if you were capable of being rational for a few consecutive moments!

Plenty of fossils have been found in sandstone!

Sheesh! What an ignoramus you are!!
.

You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.

again a false assumption and attempting to manipulate fact.
1 true, many fossils are found in sandstone .
2 but sand stone takes millions of years to form that fact alone refutes the young earth myth.
meaning YWC has no argument..

 

[Montrovant]

Why do fossils mean anything in the question of whether god exists? How did we get diverted? Oh, I see... it was newpolitics who introduced fossils. Hollie has now taken interest in fossils, after scratching her itch to bash and trash christians again. What is amazing to me is, how this same small group of posters can go for pages, diverting and distracting, spewing hate for religion, mocking the religious, and propping up their myths that evolution explains origin, and this is viewed as a refutation of the OP argument.

Be fair about this. S.J. introduced evolution into the discussion in response to a quote from newpolitics about belief not equaling truth (or something to that effect). Once evolution comes up in a religious argument, it is pretty inevitable where it will lead, at least with some of the posters likely to be involved. There is a ridiculously long creationism thread going over and over the same things already, and I don't think that's slowed down.

Yes, some people like to bash christians or the religious in general. Some of the religious like to bash atheists and agnostics, too. And the religious are just as capable of diverting a thread as the non-religious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What has that got to do with evolution, you silly person!

Anyway, your utter ignorance is proven, yet again. Of course, strata can be formed without water! Volcanic deposits, wind-blown sand and soil are obvious examples, if you were capable of being rational for a few consecutive moments!

Plenty of fossils have been found in sandstone!

Sheesh! What an ignoramus you are!!
.

You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.

Oh my. Yet another creationist conspiracy theory debunked

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils


CC365: Coconino footprints


The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002

Do you suffer from a.d.d ? These fossils have not been refuted opinions have been offered that is it. Do I need to point out hoaxes form your side now. Look you and your buddy was getting your butt handed to you so you try to change the subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What has that got to do with evolution, you silly person!

Anyway, your utter ignorance is proven, yet again. Of course, strata can be formed without water! Volcanic deposits, wind-blown sand and soil are obvious examples, if you were capable of being rational for a few consecutive moments!

Plenty of fossils have been found in sandstone!

Sheesh! What an ignoramus you are!!
.

You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.

again a false assumption and attempting to manipulate fact.
1 true, many fossils are found in sandstone .
2 but sand stone takes millions of years to form that fact alone refutes the young earth myth.
meaning YWC has no argument..

prove it

 

[Hollie]

You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.

Oh my. Yet another creationist conspiracy theory debunked

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils


CC365: Coconino footprints


The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002

Do you suffer from a.d.d ? These fossils have not been refuted opinions have been offered that is it. Do I need to point out hoaxes form your side now. Look you and your buddy was getting your butt handed to you so you try to change the subject.

So... you may need to float another conspiracy theory as a means to prevent another of your specious claims crashing Into the ground in flames.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What has that got to do with evolution, you silly person!

Anyway, your utter ignorance is proven, yet again. Of course, strata can be formed without water! Volcanic deposits, wind-blown sand and soil are obvious examples, if you were capable of being rational for a few consecutive moments!

Plenty of fossils have been found in sandstone!

Sheesh! What an ignoramus you are!!
.

You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.

again a false assumption and attempting to manipulate fact.
1 true, many fossils are found in sandstone .
2 but sand stone takes millions of years to form that fact alone refutes the young earth myth.
meaning YWC has no argument..

The earth's crust is made up of sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock was distributed by rapid erosion and deposition by water let's not forget transportation. There is no evidence of global uniformity of strata over large spans of time.

You are reading opinions and taking it as a fact as usual.

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?

 

[Hollie]

You silly person we were talking rock strata where fossils are found.

You silly person don't have a clue How is Sandstone Formed? - Ask.com

Ignoramus is fitting for you child.

again a false assumption and attempting to manipulate fact.
1 true, many fossils are found in sandstone .
2 but sand stone takes millions of years to form that fact alone refutes the young earth myth.
meaning YWC has no argument..

The earth's crust is made up of sedimentary rock. The sedimentary rock was distributed by rapid erosion and deposition by water let's not forget transportation. There is no evidence of global uniformity of strata over large spans of time.

You are reading opinions and taking it as a fact as usual.

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?

The earth's crust was formed in just a few thousand years?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh my. Yet another creationist conspiracy theory debunked

"Polystrate" Tree Fossils


CC365: Coconino footprints


The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 2002

Do you suffer from a.d.d ? These fossils have not been refuted opinions have been offered that is it. Do I need to point out hoaxes form your side now. Look you and your buddy was getting your butt handed to you so you try to change the subject.

So... you may need to float another conspiracy theory as a means to prevent another of your specious claims crashing Into the ground in flames.

Well if you insist.

25 Greatest Scientific Hoaxes In History

 

[Hollie]

Do you suffer from a.d.d ? These fossils have not been refuted opinions have been offered that is it. Do I need to point out hoaxes form your side now. Look you and your buddy was getting your butt handed to you so you try to change the subject.

So... you may need to float another conspiracy theory as a means to prevent another of your specious claims crashing Into the ground in flames.

Well if you insist.

25 Greatest Scientific Hoaxes In History

As bogus as I expected. The first item was about crop circles.

Were you under the impression that any such silliness lends support for your gawds?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So... you may need to float another conspiracy theory as a means to prevent another of your specious claims crashing Into the ground in flames.

Well if you insist.

25 Greatest Scientific Hoaxes In History

As bogus as I expected. The first item was about crop circles.

Were you under the impression that any such silliness lends support for your gawds?

No but bright minds of science were provoked to say they came from space aliens so they created a theory on that evidence.see how a vivid imagination works.

 

[Hollie]

Well if you insist.

25 Greatest Scientific Hoaxes In History

As bogus as I expected. The first item was about crop circles.

Were you under the impression that any such silliness lends support for your gawds?

No but bright minds of science were provoked to say they came from space aliens so they created a theory on that evidence.see how a vivid imagination works.

Who was "provoked".

 

[numan]

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?

You get more incoherent with each posting. Many of the sandstone deposits were formed by wind action -- no water involved. They are recognizable to geologists and can be seen forming today in many places. Animals in the distant past were often covered by the sand (wind action, no water involved) and fossilized right in the sand!!

The Grand Canyon itself is about 6 million years old, The sandstone there has nothing to do with the Colorado River!! It was formed hundreds of millions of years ago!!

By the way, have you ever heard of radioactive dating? Or do you imagine that Jehovah waved his Magic Fingers here, there, and everywhere all over the globe to make uranium decay at various different rates in order to fool the geologists?

I think you must be at least at the borderlines of insanity!!
.

 

[Montrovant]

Boss, a quick question : if no one would argue so long or hard against something they didn't believe, do you think YWC secretly believes in evolution (or to be more specific macro-evolution)? After all, he's spent years arguing against it, would he do that if he didn't believe?

 

[Boss]

You claim that people in this thread who say they don't believe in god actually do, then wonder what assumption you might be making.

I'm not making any assumptions, people don't argue this much about things they aren't passionate about. My experience has been, most of the god-haters who spend this much time responding to threads such as this, are not those who don't believe in god. It is god who is the object of their hate and rage, and they must believe god exists. People who really don't believe in god, couldn't care less about this thread.

You clearly don't understand the phrase 'it boils down to'. I was not directly quoting you saying 'because I say so', I was summarizing the basics of many of your arguments. When you argue that the spiritual exists, but those who do not believe in it cannot see it, that argument boils down to 'because I say so'. If it makes you feel better, rephrase it. Perhaps as 'trust me'?

But that wasn't what I said. It's also not an accurate summary of any argument I have made. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp with regard to acceptance, if you refuse to accept spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, the evidence you need to prove god can't be realized. I even reversed the argument to illustrate this point: IF someone rejects physical science and physical evidence, preferring to adhere to spiritual evidence alone, there is no way to "prove" anything to them with science or physical evidence. You can explain things until you are blue in the face, if they don't accept your evidence, they aren't going to comprehend.

You may think your definitions are clear, but when you define something as a thing which cannot be empirically observed, which does not exist in physical reality, it leaves you open to say nearly anything about that thing. It is your spirituality, it is god, it is a savage pink unicorn, anything you say about the spiritual realm is valid by that definition.

Several problems here... many people do empirically observe the effects of spiritual nature. Spiritual nature does exist in reality, but it exists in a spiritual state, not physical. It's illogical to demand spirituality be proven physically. I have avoided specific incarnations of what humans develop to explain their spiritual connections, but I am not aware that any group of spiritual believers have ever thought of god as a savage pink unicorn. This is merely something you conjured up to mock and ridicule spirituality. Why can't you seriously debate the subject? Is it because you really don't have an argument? You have to create these imaginary memes and nonsense, to denigrate and ridicule others, because you lack the ammunition to defeat the argument presented.

Evidence doesn't matter?
Yes, nearly all animals have some level of intelligence. Do you not understand variations in degree? Do you not believe that human intelligence is both greater than other animal species, and gives us the capacity to think of things most, or all, other animal species cannot?

Well, if nearly all animals have intelligence, I would say this disqualifies intelligence as our most defining characteristic. Spirituality, on the other hand, is ONLY practiced by humans. We are the ONLY species with this characteristic.... hence, it is our most defining characteristic.

I'm not arguing that other animals worry about what happens when they die. I'm arguing that most, if not all other animals are incapable of doing so.

I agree, it's because other animals are not spiritually connected.

I have claimed that fear of death is one of the major things supernatural belief provides an answer to or at least comfort from.

Sorry, but this "fear of death" is not present in nature. Other animals and living things, do not need or require answers or comfort. If that were the case, if we had evidence to support this in nature, I could accept that humans created spirituality to deal with our fear of death, but since that isn't the case in nature, I can't come to this conclusion. Since this "fear of death" thing is so prevalent in man, and nowhere else in nature, I have to think it may be related to our other unique attribute of spirituality. My belief is, the spiritual connection made by man, which is indeed a real thing, is what prompts man to ask the question and need reassurance and comfort. You've simply not rationally or logically refuted my argument.

I don't understand why you keep coming back to this. Why is the lack of human fear in animals evidence of spirituality? If other animals are INCAPABLE of the same kind of contemplation of death that humanity is, if they lack the intellectual capacity to fear death as we do or desire comfort as we do, how is that evidence of spirituality? You may as well say that because a tree does not worship a higher power, it is evidence of man's spiritual connection.
Again, you may be correct about the spiritual, but your arguments in favor of it are very strange!

The argument made, was that humans invented spirituality to cope with fear of death, which simply does not naturally exist in any other species of life. It's an irrational assumption that humans made up something from imagination, to cope with a fear that isn't natural or isn't present in any other living thing. Again, because humans make a very real spiritual connection with something outside the physical realm, it induces humans to think about and contemplate what happens to their spiritual self, after they die. It is THROUGH spirituality that man has this "fear of death" which you are trying to credit for invention of spirituality. It defies nature, it defies logic, it defies reason and rationality. It's like arguing that humans invented computers because Windows 7 won't run on a calculator. You have the proverbial cart ahead of the horse.

No other creature has spirituality, no other creature contemplates what happens after death. This is not some quirky coincidence.

What about black holes is unexplainable? I'm sure there's plenty we don't know, but as I understand it the current theories and evidence about black holes fits within the laws of physics. I'm no expert, and I'm honestly interested in how I'm wrong if you want to explain.
I certainly agree that science doesn't know everything and has had to change or completely recant things, and likely will many times in the future.

Maybe you should study up on the subject? Every fucking thing is "explainable" whether the explanations are valid or not. Many times, we "explain" things with theories, ideas that haven't been confirmed as facts or laws, but have validity of evidence to reasonable minds. Often, people will resort to "faith" in these theories as proven fact, as is often the case with evolution.

Black holes are interesting because they defy everything we thought we knew with regard to physics. This has sparked an entirely new genre of science called Quantum Physics. Now it's interesting, because QP takes physics out of the realm of natural physics, and theorizes things that natural physical sciences doesn't currently support. To examine QP theory, you have to check your preconceptions of physics at the door and keep an open mind. In a way, this also applies to spiritual nature.

You haven't won this argument, nor have I, as it really cannot be won. It is entirely opinion based. You have provided what evidence you can for your beliefs, but nothing definitive. It cannot be, as by your own definition there is no tangible evidence possible for the spiritual.

Well, the argument in the OP stands until someone refutes it, and so far, no one has. It's not an opinion, it is an argument, made with points and evidence to support them. We are inundated with your opinion that the argument is wrong, but you aren't supporting it with anything more than your opinions, which are found to be highly irrational and illogical. There is plenty of tangible evidence for the spiritual nature that does exist, you just have to believe in spiritual nature. If you reject it, you can't see the evidence... just like the religious nut who refuses to accept science.

I admitted in the first two paragraphs, if your perception is, spiritual nature does not exist, no one will ever be able to prove god's existence to you. We can talk for another 50 pages, you still won't be any closer to answering the question. That's why these threads go on forever, and never change any minds. In order for an objective evaluation, you have to approach the question in an unbiased manner, and you have to accept, at least the possibility, of spiritual nature's existence. If you refuse, there is no amount of physical evidence to answer the question. When you can accept that spiritual nature does exist, the evidence for god is overwhelming and irrefutable. This is why god-haters must continue to reject it.

Similar arguments could be made for the existence of other supernatural things, be it ghosts, or telepathy, or the gods of religions. As long as something is not observable or testable in the physical realm in which we reside, it will remain a subjective belief. Even most of those who have the spiritual connection you believe in most likely think you are wrong in many specifics, since you don't follow their particular religious beliefs.

Again, you are clinging to physical sciences to explain something that is not physical in nature. You will get nowhere in evaluating the question at hand. I have purposely made my argumentative points without the help of religion or religious teachings. I have repeatedly clarified, this is not to be confused for a debate on theology or religious incarnations of various gods. While those are manifestations (and evidence) of a human spiritual connection, they have nothing to do with the question of spiritual presence. They do support my argument that humans are devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self, and always have been. They could have very well, wrongly interpreted this connection, or used their imaginations to construct an inaccurate understanding of the connection, but the connection existed, nonetheless. This is not about religion, it's about the human attribute of spirituality, which has been with us for all of our existence in some form, and remains the dominant and prevailing attribute in our species, which defines us uniquely as a species.

So, I understand the belief that humanity's supernatural worship and superstition through our history must be based on something real. I simply disagree. I think it is quite possible that humans have created these beliefs without any real spiritual, magical, or supernatural forces existing. You give more weight to human belief than I do. That is unlikely to change for either of us, at least in the course of a message board discussion.

If there were any examples in nature, from any other life form, that this is natural or normal, I might agree that it's a possibility. As it stands, it defies all logic. You seriously want to believe, the smartest of all creatures, needed to invent a security blanket to cope with death, and a placebo to fill in gaps of knowledge. No other creature does that... EVER! Even the simplest, least intelligent life forms, do not create fake anomalies or behaviors in order to thrive and exist. You keep running to human intelligence, but our advanced intelligence is a byproduct of spirituality. We're unique to other animals in so many ways, but the one thing that we have, which no other animal has, is spiritual connection. It is our most defining attribute as a species.

 

[Boss]

Boss, a quick question : if no one would argue so long or hard against something they didn't believe, do you think YWC secretly believes in evolution (or to be more specific macro-evolution)? After all, he's spent years arguing against it, would he do that if he didn't believe?

Why do you insist on taking everything I say out of context, and spewing back out some idiocy that I never said? What is that about?

I never said that people won't argue long and hard about what they don't believe in. I simply said, many people who profess to not believe in god, are huge believers in god. Either you are capable of understanding that statement or you're not. We see in this thread, people who continue to want to make this a religious debate, and this is because their personal beliefs include anger and resentment for religion and religious people. About 2/3 of the time, these individuals truly do believe in god, they are angry and vindictive toward god, and this results in inadvertently thinking this is a religious argument. The main problem is, they have a misconception about god, they believe in a god that doesn't have to exist for a spiritual higher power to exist. They are afraid to open their minds to spiritual evidence because they fear it opens the door to acknowledgment of the god they believe in but hate. That is why it is so important to check religion and religious beliefs at the door, when evaluating this question. I have focused on the most defining attribute of our species, human spirituality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?

You get more incoherent with each posting. Many of the sandstone deposits were formed by wind action -- no water involved. They are recognizable to geologists and can be seen forming today in many places. Animals in the distant past were often covered by the sand (wind action, no water involved) and fossilized right in the sand!!

The Grand Canyon itself is about 6 million years old, The sandstone there has nothing to do with the Colorado River!! It was formed hundreds of millions of years ago!!

By the way, have you ever heard of radioactive dating? Or do you imagine that Jehovah waved his Magic Fingers here, there, and everywhere all over the globe to make uranium decay at various different rates in order to fool the geologists?

I think you must be at least at the borderlines of insanity!!
.

Try again Age of the Grand Canyon | How Old is the Grand Canyon

Yes I have heard of the dating method I believe all dating methods are unreliable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you explain sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon with a river constantly running through it ?

You get more incoherent with each posting. Many of the sandstone deposits were formed by wind action -- no water involved. They are recognizable to geologists and can be seen forming today in many places. Animals in the distant past were often covered by the sand (wind action, no water involved) and fossilized right in the sand!!

The Grand Canyon itself is about 6 million years old, The sandstone there has nothing to do with the Colorado River!! It was formed hundreds of millions of years ago!!

By the way, have you ever heard of radioactive dating? Or do you imagine that Jehovah waved his Magic Fingers here, there, and everywhere all over the globe to make uranium decay at various different rates in order to fool the geologists?

I think you must be at least at the borderlines of insanity!!
.

How did so many marine fossils find their way to the Grand Canyon ?