Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

Your only words were "Bullshit"

The rest of your post were quotes from take your pick.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...anding+of+the+main+events+of+the+Earth's+past.

plagiarize much Daws ?

in my case it was a mistake. was too busy showcasing your fraud.
in yours it's an ongoing charade .
I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..


besides it doesn't make me any less right.
you on the other hand....

Sorry what I stated was a fact and has been noted as such. Your side keeps ducking the hard questions because they know they had a hole shot in their theory.

dodge! it's not your theory and it's wrong.

 

[HUGGY]

“Believe me when I say I wish that violence wasn’t necessary. But violence is the price we pay to accomplish a greater good. As heroes, we choose to protect that good with our lives.”
—Superman

“You’re everything that’s good about the human race. You showed me what it means to be close to someone. You inspire me to be better…to work harder for a better tomorrow. You represent everything I’m supposed to believe in…I was sent here to find you…to be with you…”

Superman making the biggest mistake of his life....

 

[Youwerecreated]

in my case it was a mistake. was too busy showcasing your fraud.
in yours it's an ongoing charade .
I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..


besides it doesn't make me any less right.
you on the other hand....

Your last attempt at being intelligent lol. post 1299 I am sure i can find more if i check every post you attempt to sound intelligent

Liar.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...philosophers+such+as+Henri+Bergson,+Nietzsche

I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..

again a mistake unlike, your ongoing fraud.

btw I could write a book on you failed attempts to feign first hand knowledge and expertize on these threads.
the difference is I can make mistakes as I don't claim to be something I'm not.
on the other hand, you.....

Nope you are a dishonest turd and I am everything I claimed to be.

 

[Youwerecreated]

in my case it was a mistake. was too busy showcasing your fraud.
in yours it's an ongoing charade .
I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..


besides it doesn't make me any less right.
you on the other hand....

Your last attempt at being intelligent lol. post 1299 I am sure i can find more if i check every post you attempt to sound intelligent

Liar.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...philosophers+such+as+Henri+Bergson,+Nietzsche

I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..

again a mistake unlike, your ongoing fraud.

btw I could write a book on you failed attempts to feign first hand knowledge and expertize on these threads.
the difference is I can make mistakes as I don't claim to be something I'm not.
on the other hand, you.....

Take your pick several sources on that google search said what you said word for word lol.

 

[Youwerecreated]

in my case it was a mistake. was too busy showcasing your fraud.
in yours it's an ongoing charade .
I notice you haven't credited them to the real authors..


besides it doesn't make me any less right.
you on the other hand....

Sorry what I stated was a fact and has been noted as such. Your side keeps ducking the hard questions because they know they had a hole shot in their theory.

dodge! it's not your theory and it's wrong.

Astrology was not my major but explain how what I stated was wrong ?

 

[BreezeWood]

I see, from a public point of view, spiritual existence revealed most clearly -- certainly not in religion!! -- but in mathematics -- a concrete, infinite, miraculously detailed and harmonious reality from beyond the boundaries of the physical universe -- though it is, to some degree, manifested in the way physical reality is structured.

.

spiritual existence revealed most clearly - (but) in mathematics - though it is, to some degree, manifested in the way physical reality is structured.



there is no mathematics to the physical reality of the Garden

certainly not in the Bible religion but neither in mathematics (shame the Atheist) is spiritual existence revealed, as nar a similar blade of Grass has ever been the same for the past 750 million years nor will they be for all eternity. and similarly not possible a structured physical reality for an individual Spirit as proven likewise by the dissimilarities of all life forms similar or not in the past, present or for all eternity.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, I know Behe coined the phrase, but the principle is actually part of Darwin's theory. It is not the 'opposite' of anything, because Evolution deals with species evolving, not origin. Darwin made a very detailed analytical standard for natural selection, because he realized it couldn't simply be used willy-nilly to explain anything and everything.

Here is what Darwin said regarding his theory and the human eye: “to suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree”. He goes on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, “the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real”. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species.

Now it is on this prerequisite of natural selection, Behe makes his argument for irreducible complexity. The powers of natural selection are not predictive, they can't presume to know that a photoreceptor spot is going to need a lens, an iris and pupil, and then form it. IF evolution is this amazing, it is more of a miracle than God. The simple photoreceptor cells, which Darwin very well knew about, were thought for a long time, to be a predecessor to the modern eye, but as we've learned more about the optic nerve and chemical reactions, the more we understand the two systems are completely different. Humans do not utilize the optic nerve in the same way as something with a photoreceptor cell. The operation of the optic nerve is entirely different, but Darwin didn't know this.

So the evolution of the eye has not been shown, as Darwin previously thought. The eye is irreducibly complex, meaning; if any one component of the eye is not present, the system doesn't work. If evolution is responsible, it had to 'intelligently' compile a checklist of parts needed, and construct what we know to be an eye. There is no "simpler stage" the eye could have had, and still function at all. What we once thought to be links to primitive photovoltaic spots, turned out to be false leads, the systems are completely different and operate on a completely different principle.

Behe's argument is not to be carried as far as you rhetorically like to carry it. Natural selection can indeed produce a more complex or robust system over time, but it has to work within the confines of what is natural and within bounds of nature. It can't predict that various components will eventually be needed and start building those, so they are complete when everything else is in place. That's just not how natural selection works. If you believe that natural selection has the ability to be predictive like this, you believe in "intelligent" design.

Behe himself credits William Paley for the concept, not Darwin.

Again, Behe coined the phrase, credited Paley with the concept, but the principle of the argument is found in Darwinist theory.

And your Darwin quote is a perfect example of the dishonest quote mining of Creationist liars. Darwin went on to explain that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, “the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection ... can hardly be considered real”. He then proceeded to roughly map out a likely course for evolution using examples of gradually more complex eyes of various species. But as a know-it-all you knew that already.

You're just repeating what I said, you're not contradicting anything. Natural selection is bound by certain limits or rules, and this is why Darwin has to offer a likely course for evolution. Turns out, he was incorrect regarding evolution of the eye. Therefore, in his own words, it is absurd to believe the eye is produced by natural selection.

If you remember, our ancient little part plant part animal the Euglena had an eye spot to help it find the light for photosynthesis. Through random mutation across the population, the photosensitive cells happened to have developed on a small depression, it endowed the organism with a better sense of the light's source. This small change gave the organism an advantage over those without the mutation. This genetic trait would then be "selected for" as those with the trait would have an increased chance of survival, and therefore progeny, over those without the trait. Individuals with deeper depressions would be able to discern changes in light over a wider field than those individuals with shallower depressions. As ever deeper depressions were advantageous to the organism, gradually, this depression would become a pit into which light would strike certain cells depending on its angle. The organism slowly gained increasingly precise visual information. And again, this gradual process continued as individuals having a slightly shrunken aperture of the eye had an advantage over those without the mutation as an aperture increases how collimated the light is at any one specific group of photoreceptors. As this trait developed, the eye became effectively a pinhole camera which allowed the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, via this same selection process, a protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images. In this way, eyes are recognized by modern biologists as actually a relatively unambiguous and simple structure to evolve.

Yes, this is precisely how Darwin explained it in 1859. What we eventually would discover, is the photosensitive cell system is completely different from the human optic nerve system. One operates on chemical reaction from light stimulation, the other works on electric impulses to the brain from an optic nerve, receiving an image. Two completely different and unique systems of operation. So when you theorize the precursor to the modern eye was a pit or depression, the human eye would be of no use, it would not function at all. The way a pinhole camera functions, flips the image, so the retina in a human eye, receives the information upside down, and our brain transposes the information right-side-up, a step that is totally unnecessary for a photosensitive spot.

You are trying to take an 1859 understanding, and force-fit that understanding, regardless of what science has learned since that time. What Darwin theorized, is not supported by the evidence here.

Again you just repeat yourself knowing you are wrong all along. Darwin shot down the IC argument with evolution. Shooting down IC does not make it a "principal of the argument" in evolutionary theory as you pompously claim.

None of the crap you said about human eyes being different than the evolving eyes is true either. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. When focused light reaches your retina it triggers a complex chemical reaction in the light-sensitive rod and cone cells. Rods contain a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple," and cones contain chemicals called color pigments. These chemicals undergo a transformation that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain through the optic nerve. This happens with eyespots, eyecups, eyecups that have evolved into pinholes, pinholes that have evolved a lens, and on and on to the human eye. They all use a chemical reaction to the light to generate an electrical impulse to the optic nerve.

 

[Boss]

Of course, our solar system is such an infinitesimal speck in the vastness of the universe as we understand it....the idea that life should be found elsewhere in the solar system is pretty silly.

REALLY? WHY? Because, according to you, life on Earth came about as a result of primordial soup, all the elements of life from the universe, and over billions of years, evolved with nothing more than natural selection guiding the way. If this is such an easy read, why is the story not the same elsewhere? Life, if it were as easy to explain the origin of as you've made it out to be, should be all around us... on the moon, on Mars... the moons of Jupiter... etc. All the same natural elements that propagated life on Earth, are available everywhere else in the universe, so why is it silly to expect to see the same results?

It's only "silly" because we don't find it. Before we were capable of looking, there were quite a few scientists who speculated life existed on other planets in our solar system. We're still convinced that we'll find microbial life on Mars!



Yet the universe contains all of the essential elements to form life, and on our particular planet in the universe, this life formed in great abundance, and evolved into a completely self-sustaining ecosystem, working in harmony with natural forces, generating new species and varieties of living things, by the billions, all interdependent on each other for survival and existence, and at the technological pinnacle, is a species who happens to curiously possess profound spiritual connection to something greater than self. Weird man!

While I agree that stating there definitely is life on other worlds is wrong, I don't think that is how Mom was saying it. By prefacing her statement with 'I agree with Ed' she was echoing the sentiment. Ambiguously worded, perhaps, but what I took from it was that it is her belief, not some statement of irrefutable fact.

The irrefutable fact is, we've not discovered life elsewhere in our vast huge universe. Despite the fact that our vast huge universe is chock-full of life-enabling elements, and the supposed origin process is such a piece of cake. Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have a distinct wobble in our rotation, caused by the moon careening into the planet early on, and we have tides created by the presence of that same moon, which isn't too big or too small, and provides a gravitational pull on the oceans. The seasons and ocean tides are what enable almost every variety of life to exist, it is the key to most life cycles, reproduction, function, purpose. We have a layered atmosphere, one that blocks out radiation and ultraviolet rays, and one that maintains the perfect atmospheric pressure to enable life to exist. Because of the seasons and tides, and the atmosphere, we have a climate system which operates in a fairly stable manner, yes we have disasters, but we don't have hurricanes that consume large areas of our planet for thousands of years, like Jupiter.

The further down the road of knowledge we go, the more we see that life is special, and it takes a lot of very special things to make it possible. You can only say "it just so happens" so many times, then it gets to be ridiculous. And when we couple all of this, with the indisputable fact that life's most advanced species is intrinsically tied to spirituality, it becomes almost impossible to believe ALL these things are coincidental.

You say according to me....have I opined to you about the origins of life on Earth?

No, you haven't really gone into it, but let's not hide behind individual personality here, you are well aware of the arguments and positions taken, and what I am addressing.

Anyway, your description of the difficulties involved in life arising on this planet only highlights why any assumption that there should be an abundance of life in this solar system seems silly to me. There are numerous conditions necessary for life on Earth that are not present on other planets/moons in our solar system. Are they present on other planets in the universe? It seems probable based on the astronomically (pun intended) large number of planets we've observed, and the further number we extrapolate from those observations.

I have not said that life can not exist elsewhere. I asked you why it seems silly to you, that life could exist elsewhere, given that all the ingredients are there. You see, there is this theory that life on Earth spontaneously sprang forth while the planet was in it's primordial phases, and once it took root, it used a process known as natural selection, to create the billions and billions of fascinating and amazing forms of life on the planet. All of this supposedly just happened by twist of fate, no outside force was present. My question is, why did it only happen here, in our solar system? Why don't see see ANY life elsewhere?

Life arising, at any time in the billions of years the universe is believed to exist, may be an exceedingly rare event. Still, even if only 1 in every trillion planets or moons in the universe has life on it, there would be multiple places with life. However, the odds of our seeing it would be appropriately small.

You say we have not found life elsewhere in our vast universe, and you are correct. What you fail to mention, and in fact seem to imply isn't true, is that we have barely seen the tiniest portion of what the universe contains. Our study of other planets is almost entirely done without enough detail to know if life might or might not exist on them.

Again, and please take note of this important detail: I HAVE NOT SAID THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE OR PROBABLE THAT LIFE EXISTS ELSEWHERE! We are TOLD the recipe for life on Earth is this simple to explain phenomenon that just happened, because all of the building blocks were present and came together under the right conditions.... I get that, but why is there no other signs of life, anywhere to be found, at all? Not even a microbe! Granted, we haven't even begun to look, but you'd think, if the recipe for life were so simple and easy to explain as happenstance, we'd find life everywhere we looked, to some degree, in some form. But zero, zilch, nadda. Even though, we have you science people telling us it's practically impossible that we won't discover life somewhere else... but we've not found it yet, and we can certainly see/explore a lot of places.

Look... IF we looked out into our solar system, and we saw some plant life, vegetation, algae, in this place or that... maybe some bacteria on Mars... fungus on the moon... something... anything... THEN, I could accept the premise that all the necessary elements for life are found in the universe, and that life just happened to be more conducive to evolution and growth here, and that's how/why it all came to be. What I see is absolutely NO life, of any kind. This tells me that something special is happening, and it's very rare.

So again, the thought that because we have not found life on other worlds, it does not exist or even is unlikely to exist, is nothing but egocentric foolishness.

Likewise, it is egocentric foolishness to say that Science can't prove God's existence, especially if we objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. We don't know everything in Science. It's a never ending journey of discovery, and we don't know what we may find. Maybe God lives inside a black hole? Maybe the black hole is portal to heaven and everlasting life?

Considering how often the monotheistic religions of the world seem to try and push humility and man's insignificance in the grand scheme of things, I find that ironic. Despite the wondrous advances mankind has made in recent history, our ability to find life elsewhere in the universe is still incredibly limited.

I don't want to argue religion here. I am not a religious person. I believe religions are simply more profound spiritual evidence of the existence of something greater than self. It is man's way of coping and comprehending with a very REAL connection. This is the important point you need to understand, because humans DO connect to something outside of the physical. They've been doing it since humans existed.

As to your claim that humanity is indisputably intrinsically tied to spirituality, that is and has been disputed. Your inability to accept that doesn't change that it is in dispute, especially when the spiritual has been ill-defined at best. In fact, I still await a definition from you for spiritual evidence, as do others in this thread. Without proper definitions, the only conclusion I have been able to draw is that you consider spirituality something that you must believe in before you can explain it. That kind of circular logic is worthless.

Circular reasoning doesn't necessarily mean it's "wrong." No one has been able to dispute over 70,000 years of discovery, ancient civilizations from all over the planet, all practicing some form of spirituality. Ceremonial rituals and burials, worshiping some higher power or force. We look at the pyramids in Egypt, technological wonders TODAY, let alone when they were constructed. Something is up with that, it's too profound and prevalent to be a fluke, imagination, delusion, fairy tale.

Spiritual is very easily defined, that which is NOT physical. This is why it's impossible to prove with PHYSICAL evidence alone, it simply can not be done. In order to examine spiritual existence of a spiritual entity, you have to be able to evaluate the spiritual evidence, which is somewhat overwhelming. 70k years of spirituality in humans, accompanied by humanitarianism and civilization. Profound connection with some power greater than self for all our existence as a species. Billions of people who profess to have received blessings from something spiritual. Billions of people willing to die for their spiritual belief rather than abandon it. Form and function of the entire system of life on our planet, how it interconnects in harmony of nature. Every organism has pattern of mechanical design that isn't explained at all, along with properties of things like gravity and electricity, things that we understand HOW they work, we can't explain WHY. Science itself, is spiritual evidence of god.

But you revealed why you must continue closing your mind to spiritual evidence, it's because you dislike religion and people who have religious beliefs. For you, and so many like you, this is all about disdain and hatred of religion, and the God of Abraham. I make no distinction as to what "form" god adheres to, I don't need to do this in order to objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence. I find that our planet and life is remarkable and special, and that humans are endowed with spiritual connection because they are the stewards of this special and unique place we call Earth. My personal connection with spirituality transcends "faith" because it's something I know, and not just a belief.

 

[Boss]

Again you just repeat yourself knowing you are wrong all along. Darwin shot down the IC argument with evolution. Shooting down IC does not make it a "principal of the argument" in evolutionary theory as you pompously claim.

None of the crap you said about human eyes being different than the evolving eyes is true either. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. When focused light reaches your retina it triggers a complex chemical reaction in the light-sensitive rod and cone cells. Rods contain a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple," and cones contain chemicals called color pigments. These chemicals undergo a transformation that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain through the optic nerve. This happens with eyespots, eyecups, eyecups that have evolved into pinholes, pinholes that have evolved a lens, and on and on to the human eye. They all use a chemical reaction to the light to generate an electrical impulse to the optic nerve.

...Which does NOT happen with a simple photoreceptor spot.

The processes are entirely different and operate/function in a different way. The retina doesn't even exist with a photoreceptor spot, the spot IS the retina, for all intents and purposes. It transmits signals through purely chemical reactions in the brain to detect presence of light. There is no Darwinist basis to get from there to a 'pinhole' because the system would have no need for such a thing. The pinhole produces an upside-down image for the retina, which doesn't exist in a photoreceptor spot. What can it do with an upside-down image, when it's purpose it to detect light? Again, the way you are explaining the "evolution" of a human eye here, is more remarkable and miraculous than any god or intelligent designer. You have evolution creating things that it has no way of knowing is needed, changing entire systems to accommodate new innovations it comes up with on the fly, and it's the freaking miracle of natural selection at work!

 

[edthecynic]

There is a distinct difference between a statement that "life is all over the universe" and "there is a high mathematical probability life exists elsewhere." Seems to me, until you can find life elsewhere, it is illogical to say life is everywhere. It may indeed be possible, highly probable, almost certain... but until it is proven it isn't proven.

But this does beg the question, if the universe is full of life-enabling elements, why do we not see an abundance of life around us? Why is it we find no other place in our solar system, where life as we know it on Earth, could even survive? The more we look out into our universe, the more we are discovering these conditions on Earth are sort of special. They are not common, as best we can tell. Lots of candidates close enough to their sun, but covered in methane clouds... lots more with no atmosphere to speak of... some so affected by volcanic eruptions and massive electrical storms, life couldn't survive if it ever did exist there. So no, you have NOT proven "life is everywhere in the universe" ...far from it! You have not shown ANY sign of extraterrestrial life. Yet, here you are, claiming it true!

Of course, our solar system is such an infinitesimal speck in the vastness of the universe as we understand it....the idea that life should be found elsewhere in the solar system is pretty silly.

REALLY? WHY? Because, according to you, life on Earth came about as a result of primordial soup, all the elements of life from the universe, and over billions of years, evolved with nothing more than natural selection guiding the way. If this is such an easy read, why is the story not the same elsewhere? Life, if it were as easy to explain the origin of as you've made it out to be, should be all around us... on the moon, on Mars... the moons of Jupiter... etc. All the same natural elements that propagated life on Earth, are available everywhere else in the universe, so why is it silly to expect to see the same results?

It's only "silly" because we don't find it. Before we were capable of looking, there were quite a few scientists who speculated life existed on other planets in our solar system. We're still convinced that we'll find microbial life on Mars!

Even if there are a million other planets which currently have life of some sort on them (and currently is a big deal - there could have been life on trillions of planets in the past which has since died out, there could be life on countless planets in the future, the universe is likely a very old thing) the odds are pretty small that we can observe that life at this point in our technological advancement. It is, in fact, quite possible that we will never be able to observe life on other worlds; if Einstein was right about the inability of matter to travel at or beyond the speed of light, and we can't find a way around that, we'll never be able to get very far into the universe.

Yet the universe contains all of the essential elements to form life, and on our particular planet in the universe, this life formed in great abundance, and evolved into a completely self-sustaining ecosystem, working in harmony with natural forces, generating new species and varieties of living things, by the billions, all interdependent on each other for survival and existence, and at the technological pinnacle, is a species who happens to curiously possess profound spiritual connection to something greater than self. Weird man!

While I agree that stating there definitely is life on other worlds is wrong, I don't think that is how Mom was saying it. By prefacing her statement with 'I agree with Ed' she was echoing the sentiment. Ambiguously worded, perhaps, but what I took from it was that it is her belief, not some statement of irrefutable fact.

The irrefutable fact is, we've not discovered life elsewhere in our vast huge universe. Despite the fact that our vast huge universe is chock-full of life-enabling elements, and the supposed origin process is such a piece of cake. Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have a distinct wobble in our rotation, caused by the moon careening into the planet early on, and we have tides created by the presence of that same moon, which isn't too big or too small, and provides a gravitational pull on the oceans. The seasons and ocean tides are what enable almost every variety of life to exist, it is the key to most life cycles, reproduction, function, purpose. We have a layered atmosphere, one that blocks out radiation and ultraviolet rays, and one that maintains the perfect atmospheric pressure to enable life to exist. Because of the seasons and tides, and the atmosphere, we have a climate system which operates in a fairly stable manner, yes we have disasters, but we don't have hurricanes that consume large areas of our planet for thousands of years, like Jupiter.

The further down the road of knowledge we go, the more we see that life is special, and it takes a lot of very special things to make it possible. You can only say "it just so happens" so many times, then it gets to be ridiculous. And when we couple all of this, with the indisputable fact that life's most advanced species is intrinsically tied to spirituality, it becomes almost impossible to believe ALL these things are coincidental.

First of all, you don't know what has been discovered and kept secret by the government. There are plenty of stories of UFOs and aliens just like your "spiritual" evidence. Secondly, why does all life have to be the same as our carbon based life? There could be other forms of life all around us that we just can't recognize. And finally, most of what you said is specially needed for life, like tides, the atmosphere, etc, are not so important. There are living organisms at the ocean floor so deep that no light or tide can reach them who live off the sulphur spewed from volcanic vents on the ocean floor. Life is quite tenacious and adaptive. Hell, there are bacteria that live in the tiniest of gaps in deep granitic and basaltic formations that metabolize hydrogen.

 

[edthecynic]

Again you just repeat yourself knowing you are wrong all along. Darwin shot down the IC argument with evolution. Shooting down IC does not make it a "principal of the argument" in evolutionary theory as you pompously claim.

None of the crap you said about human eyes being different than the evolving eyes is true either. Vision itself relies on a basic biochemistry which is common to all eyes. When focused light reaches your retina it triggers a complex chemical reaction in the light-sensitive rod and cone cells. Rods contain a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple," and cones contain chemicals called color pigments. These chemicals undergo a transformation that results in electrical impulses being sent to the brain through the optic nerve. This happens with eyespots, eyecups, eyecups that have evolved into pinholes, pinholes that have evolved a lens, and on and on to the human eye. They all use a chemical reaction to the light to generate an electrical impulse to the optic nerve.

...Which does NOT happen with a simple photoreceptor spot.

The processes are entirely different and operate/function in a different way. The retina doesn't even exist with a photoreceptor spot, the spot IS the retina, for all intents and purposes. It transmits signals through purely chemical reactions in the brain to detect presence of light. There is no Darwinist basis to get from there to a 'pinhole' because the system would have no need for such a thing. The pinhole produces an upside-down image for the retina, which doesn't exist in a photoreceptor spot. What can it do with an upside-down image, when it's purpose it to detect light? Again, the way you are explaining the "evolution" of a human eye here, is more remarkable and miraculous than any god or intelligent designer. You have evolution creating things that it has no way of knowing is needed, changing entire systems to accommodate new innovations it comes up with on the fly, and it's the freaking miracle of natural selection at work!

All you do is repeat your debunked BS over and over which does not make it any less debunked BS.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. Groups of such cells are termed "eyespots", and have evolved independently somewhere between 40 and 65 times. These eyespots permit animals to gain only a very basic sense of the direction and intensity of light, but not enough to discriminate an object from its surroundings.
Developing an optical system that can discriminate the direction of light to within a few degrees is apparently much more difficult, and only six of the thirty-something phyla possess such a system. However, these phyla account for 96% of living species.
These complex optical systems started out as the multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle.

Eye Evolution???
Can only detect absence and presence of light
flat light sensitive patches (simple photoreceptors): Euglena
cupped light sensitive spots: Planaria

With definite images
pinhole with no lens: Nautilus
simple and compound eye : arthropoda
camera eyes (with lens): vertebrate e.g. humans ; cephalopoda e.g.octopus, squid

SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS ----- e.g. Planaria

Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches.

Features:
1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina
2.sense cells in contact with retina cells

Use: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry.

PINHOLE EYES ----- e.g. Nautilus

Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity.

Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens

Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus.

 

[Montrovant]

REALLY? WHY? Because, according to you, life on Earth came about as a result of primordial soup, all the elements of life from the universe, and over billions of years, evolved with nothing more than natural selection guiding the way. If this is such an easy read, why is the story not the same elsewhere? Life, if it were as easy to explain the origin of as you've made it out to be, should be all around us... on the moon, on Mars... the moons of Jupiter... etc. All the same natural elements that propagated life on Earth, are available everywhere else in the universe, so why is it silly to expect to see the same results?

It's only "silly" because we don't find it. Before we were capable of looking, there were quite a few scientists who speculated life existed on other planets in our solar system. We're still convinced that we'll find microbial life on Mars!



Yet the universe contains all of the essential elements to form life, and on our particular planet in the universe, this life formed in great abundance, and evolved into a completely self-sustaining ecosystem, working in harmony with natural forces, generating new species and varieties of living things, by the billions, all interdependent on each other for survival and existence, and at the technological pinnacle, is a species who happens to curiously possess profound spiritual connection to something greater than self. Weird man!



The irrefutable fact is, we've not discovered life elsewhere in our vast huge universe. Despite the fact that our vast huge universe is chock-full of life-enabling elements, and the supposed origin process is such a piece of cake. Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have a distinct wobble in our rotation, caused by the moon careening into the planet early on, and we have tides created by the presence of that same moon, which isn't too big or too small, and provides a gravitational pull on the oceans. The seasons and ocean tides are what enable almost every variety of life to exist, it is the key to most life cycles, reproduction, function, purpose. We have a layered atmosphere, one that blocks out radiation and ultraviolet rays, and one that maintains the perfect atmospheric pressure to enable life to exist. Because of the seasons and tides, and the atmosphere, we have a climate system which operates in a fairly stable manner, yes we have disasters, but we don't have hurricanes that consume large areas of our planet for thousands of years, like Jupiter.

The further down the road of knowledge we go, the more we see that life is special, and it takes a lot of very special things to make it possible. You can only say "it just so happens" so many times, then it gets to be ridiculous. And when we couple all of this, with the indisputable fact that life's most advanced species is intrinsically tied to spirituality, it becomes almost impossible to believe ALL these things are coincidental.

You say according to me....have I opined to you about the origins of life on Earth?

No, you haven't really gone into it, but let's not hide behind individual personality here, you are well aware of the arguments and positions taken, and what I am addressing.



I have not said that life can not exist elsewhere. I asked you why it seems silly to you, that life could exist elsewhere, given that all the ingredients are there. You see, there is this theory that life on Earth spontaneously sprang forth while the planet was in it's primordial phases, and once it took root, it used a process known as natural selection, to create the billions and billions of fascinating and amazing forms of life on the planet. All of this supposedly just happened by twist of fate, no outside force was present. My question is, why did it only happen here, in our solar system? Why don't see see ANY life elsewhere?



Again, and please take note of this important detail: I HAVE NOT SAID THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE OR PROBABLE THAT LIFE EXISTS ELSEWHERE! We are TOLD the recipe for life on Earth is this simple to explain phenomenon that just happened, because all of the building blocks were present and came together under the right conditions.... I get that, but why is there no other signs of life, anywhere to be found, at all? Not even a microbe! Granted, we haven't even begun to look, but you'd think, if the recipe for life were so simple and easy to explain as happenstance, we'd find life everywhere we looked, to some degree, in some form. But zero, zilch, nadda. Even though, we have you science people telling us it's practically impossible that we won't discover life somewhere else... but we've not found it yet, and we can certainly see/explore a lot of places.

Look... IF we looked out into our solar system, and we saw some plant life, vegetation, algae, in this place or that... maybe some bacteria on Mars... fungus on the moon... something... anything... THEN, I could accept the premise that all the necessary elements for life are found in the universe, and that life just happened to be more conducive to evolution and growth here, and that's how/why it all came to be. What I see is absolutely NO life, of any kind. This tells me that something special is happening, and it's very rare.



Likewise, it is egocentric foolishness to say that Science can't prove God's existence, especially if we objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. We don't know everything in Science. It's a never ending journey of discovery, and we don't know what we may find. Maybe God lives inside a black hole? Maybe the black hole is portal to heaven and everlasting life?

Considering how often the monotheistic religions of the world seem to try and push humility and man's insignificance in the grand scheme of things, I find that ironic. Despite the wondrous advances mankind has made in recent history, our ability to find life elsewhere in the universe is still incredibly limited.

I don't want to argue religion here. I am not a religious person. I believe religions are simply more profound spiritual evidence of the existence of something greater than self. It is man's way of coping and comprehending with a very REAL connection. This is the important point you need to understand, because humans DO connect to something outside of the physical. They've been doing it since humans existed.

As to your claim that humanity is indisputably intrinsically tied to spirituality, that is and has been disputed. Your inability to accept that doesn't change that it is in dispute, especially when the spiritual has been ill-defined at best. In fact, I still await a definition from you for spiritual evidence, as do others in this thread. Without proper definitions, the only conclusion I have been able to draw is that you consider spirituality something that you must believe in before you can explain it. That kind of circular logic is worthless.

Circular reasoning doesn't necessarily mean it's "wrong." No one has been able to dispute over 70,000 years of discovery, ancient civilizations from all over the planet, all practicing some form of spirituality. Ceremonial rituals and burials, worshiping some higher power or force. We look at the pyramids in Egypt, technological wonders TODAY, let alone when they were constructed. Something is up with that, it's too profound and prevalent to be a fluke, imagination, delusion, fairy tale.

Spiritual is very easily defined, that which is NOT physical. This is why it's impossible to prove with PHYSICAL evidence alone, it simply can not be done. In order to examine spiritual existence of a spiritual entity, you have to be able to evaluate the spiritual evidence, which is somewhat overwhelming. 70k years of spirituality in humans, accompanied by humanitarianism and civilization. Profound connection with some power greater than self for all our existence as a species. Billions of people who profess to have received blessings from something spiritual. Billions of people willing to die for their spiritual belief rather than abandon it. Form and function of the entire system of life on our planet, how it interconnects in harmony of nature. Every organism has pattern of mechanical design that isn't explained at all, along with properties of things like gravity and electricity, things that we understand HOW they work, we can't explain WHY. Science itself, is spiritual evidence of god.

But you revealed why you must continue closing your mind to spiritual evidence, it's because you dislike religion and people who have religious beliefs. For you, and so many like you, this is all about disdain and hatred of religion, and the God of Abraham. I make no distinction as to what "form" god adheres to, I don't need to do this in order to objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence. I find that our planet and life is remarkable and special, and that humans are endowed with spiritual connection because they are the stewards of this special and unique place we call Earth. My personal connection with spirituality transcends "faith" because it's something I know, and not just a belief.

Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.

It is expecting life to exist elsewhere in the solar system that I have questioned. My reasons for this are that it takes some specific conditions for life as we know it to survive and other planets don't (so far as we can tell) have all of the correct conditions, and that just based on probability, unless you think life should arise on nearly every planet or moon in the universe, there are few enough of those in the solar system that more than one would possibly be an anomaly.

In other words, while I think it's likely that life exists or existed elsewhere in the universe, I don't think there is a good reason to assume that it should also exist elsewhere in the solar system, however it may have begun.

The fact that humanity has felt the need to believe in the spiritual is in no way proof of the existence of the spiritual.

If spiritual means not physical, there is no known way to observe the spiritual. That being the case, there is no way to prove the existence of the spiritual. It is entirely based on belief with no objective evidence, only subjective. Humans perceive the physical universe. We have not determined any way to observe anything else that I'm aware of. Unless you can show how some part of the body can observe things other than matter and energy, or some repeatable effect the spiritual has on the physical world, your claims are entirely subjective.

The only person you can prove anything to with totally subjective evidence is yourself.

The reason I have 'closed my mind' to the spiritual is because I require evidence, or at least what I consider a trustworthy source, in order to believe something exists. You have provided neither.

 

[Boss]

Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.

It is expecting life to exist elsewhere in the solar system that I have questioned. My reasons for this are that it takes some specific conditions for life as we know it to survive and other planets don't (so far as we can tell) have all of the correct conditions, and that just based on probability, unless you think life should arise on nearly every planet or moon in the universe, there are few enough of those in the solar system that more than one would possibly be an anomaly.

In other words, while I think it's likely that life exists or existed elsewhere in the universe, I don't think there is a good reason to assume that it should also exist elsewhere in the solar system, however it may have begun.

I don't know how to explain what I am saying to you, if you can't comprehend what I am writing. Yes, it takes some very special and unique conditions for life to exist, in fact, we only know of one place in the universe it does exist. But you would think, being that all the ingredients for the cake are present, and the recipe is so easy, we'd see at least some inkling of life, somewhere nearby. You're right, the planets are not hospitable... but why aren't they? All the same ingredients, a few of them should have at least been able to spurt out simple organisms of some kind, develop a stable atmosphere, something, anything!

We are expected to believe that life originated naturally, out of primordial soup or whatever, and all of this miraculous life just amazingly sprang forth... naturally... nothing else needed. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence this happened anywhere else. You say, "well it just so happens" that we had all the right conditions to support life... okay, but then, most life cycles depend on seasons and tides, which wouldn't exist if not for the moon colliding with Earth, putting it in a distinctly wobbly orbit, which creates seasons. If the moon didn't create tides, much of the ocean life couldn't exist. Seasons and tides... two more "it just so happens" to consider. Then... "it just so happens" that life we observe around us is in harmonious order, interdependent, following a form and function... more "it just so happens" to think about. Now, we get to the question of how there came to be billions of life forms, and they "just so happened" to evolve into place from other living things and then seemingly "just so happened" to stop, because we no longer see new genera emerging from other genera. But most amazing of all, it "just so happens" the only critters on the planet capable of pulling itself out of the jungles to achieve extraordinary things in comparison to other forms of life.... "just so happens," they are also profoundly attached to a spiritual belief in something greater than self.

At some point, don't we have to stop believing in coincidence?

The fact that humanity has felt the need to believe in the spiritual is in no way proof of the existence of the spiritual.

Oh, no one said it is proof, we've been over this. "Proof" is dependent on your perception of what proves something, and since you don't believe in spiritual existence, there is no proof for you. Darwin would suggest that it's evidence, that a species has exhibited a particular inherent behavior for all of it's existence, of something fundamental to the species. So whether spiritual is "real" or not, humans most certainly can't exist without believing it is real, and paying homage to it. We've done it all our existence, it can't be stomped out, ridiculed out, mocked out, educated out... Human spirituality still remains.

You say it's not proof, I say your mind is closed to spiritual proof.

If spiritual means not physical, there is no known way to observe the spiritual. That being the case, there is no way to prove the existence of the spiritual. It is entirely based on belief with no objective evidence, only subjective. Humans perceive the physical universe.

No, this is where you are fundamentally wrong. Humans perceive both the physical and spiritual. We exist in the physical universe, but we have an intrinsic and unfettered connection with the spiritual universe. There is no way to prove the spiritual with only physical evidence, NONE! There never will be, because it is a logic dichotomy! Once you have proven God with physical evidence, God ceases to be a "spiritual" entity! From that moment forward, God will forever be a PHYSICAL entity, defined by physical evidence of existence. So you can see why this is not ever going to happen, right?

We have not determined any way to observe anything else that I'm aware of. Unless you can show how some part of the body can observe things other than matter and energy, or some repeatable effect the spiritual has on the physical world, your claims are entirely subjective.

Your HEART! Your SOUL! Your MIND! There is nothing 'subjective' about those, we all have them. The "repeatable effect" is humanity. It is what enabled mankind to emerge from the jungles, form civilized societies, establish morals, become humanitarian creatures. As I said, the spiritual evidence is strong and overwhelming, which is why you must reject it...even in the face of being totally illogical in the process.

The only person you can prove anything to with totally subjective evidence is yourself.

And the only person who can open your mind to spiritual understanding is you.

The reason I have 'closed my mind' to the spiritual is because I require evidence, or at least what I consider a trustworthy source, in order to believe something exists. You have provided neither.

I know the reason, I stated it within the first two paragraphs of the OP, back on page 1 of the thread, it was deliberately the FIRST point I made. You require some kind of PHYSICAL evidence or proof, of the PHYSICAL existence (because you can't imagine any other kind of existence), regarding a SPIRITUAL entity. As we've established, this is never going to happen. But unless you see a physical proof of God, it can never be proven to you.

In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence (or presence) of a spiritual entity, we must be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, which you've completely closed your mind to. Go read the OP, I made this observation to begin the argument.

 

[Montrovant]

Wow, you have completely misunderstood what I've said.

It is expecting life to exist elsewhere in the solar system that I have questioned. My reasons for this are that it takes some specific conditions for life as we know it to survive and other planets don't (so far as we can tell) have all of the correct conditions, and that just based on probability, unless you think life should arise on nearly every planet or moon in the universe, there are few enough of those in the solar system that more than one would possibly be an anomaly.

In other words, while I think it's likely that life exists or existed elsewhere in the universe, I don't think there is a good reason to assume that it should also exist elsewhere in the solar system, however it may have begun.

I don't know how to explain what I am saying to you, if you can't comprehend what I am writing. Yes, it takes some very special and unique conditions for life to exist, in fact, we only know of one place in the universe it does exist. But you would think, being that all the ingredients for the cake are present, and the recipe is so easy, we'd see at least some inkling of life, somewhere nearby. You're right, the planets are not hospitable... but why aren't they? All the same ingredients, a few of them should have at least been able to spurt out simple organisms of some kind, develop a stable atmosphere, something, anything!

We are expected to believe that life originated naturally, out of primordial soup or whatever, and all of this miraculous life just amazingly sprang forth... naturally... nothing else needed. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence this happened anywhere else. You say, "well it just so happens" that we had all the right conditions to support life... okay, but then, most life cycles depend on seasons and tides, which wouldn't exist if not for the moon colliding with Earth, putting it in a distinctly wobbly orbit, which creates seasons. If the moon didn't create tides, much of the ocean life couldn't exist. Seasons and tides... two more "it just so happens" to consider. Then... "it just so happens" that life we observe around us is in harmonious order, interdependent, following a form and function... more "it just so happens" to think about. Now, we get to the question of how there came to be billions of life forms, and they "just so happened" to evolve into place from other living things and then seemingly "just so happened" to stop, because we no longer see new genera emerging from other genera. But most amazing of all, it "just so happens" the only critters on the planet capable of pulling itself out of the jungles to achieve extraordinary things in comparison to other forms of life.... "just so happens," they are also profoundly attached to a spiritual belief in something greater than self.

At some point, don't we have to stop believing in coincidence?

The fact that humanity has felt the need to believe in the spiritual is in no way proof of the existence of the spiritual.

Oh, no one said it is proof, we've been over this. "Proof" is dependent on your perception of what proves something, and since you don't believe in spiritual existence, there is no proof for you. Darwin would suggest that it's evidence, that a species has exhibited a particular inherent behavior for all of it's existence, of something fundamental to the species. So whether spiritual is "real" or not, humans most certainly can't exist without believing it is real, and paying homage to it. We've done it all our existence, it can't be stomped out, ridiculed out, mocked out, educated out... Human spirituality still remains.

You say it's not proof, I say your mind is closed to spiritual proof.



No, this is where you are fundamentally wrong. Humans perceive both the physical and spiritual. We exist in the physical universe, but we have an intrinsic and unfettered connection with the spiritual universe. There is no way to prove the spiritual with only physical evidence, NONE! There never will be, because it is a logic dichotomy! Once you have proven God with physical evidence, God ceases to be a "spiritual" entity! From that moment forward, God will forever be a PHYSICAL entity, defined by physical evidence of existence. So you can see why this is not ever going to happen, right?



Your HEART! Your SOUL! Your MIND! There is nothing 'subjective' about those, we all have them. The "repeatable effect" is humanity. It is what enabled mankind to emerge from the jungles, form civilized societies, establish morals, become humanitarian creatures. As I said, the spiritual evidence is strong and overwhelming, which is why you must reject it...even in the face of being totally illogical in the process.

The only person you can prove anything to with totally subjective evidence is yourself.

And the only person who can open your mind to spiritual understanding is you.

The reason I have 'closed my mind' to the spiritual is because I require evidence, or at least what I consider a trustworthy source, in order to believe something exists. You have provided neither.

I know the reason, I stated it within the first two paragraphs of the OP, back on page 1 of the thread, it was deliberately the FIRST point I made. You require some kind of PHYSICAL evidence or proof, of the PHYSICAL existence (because you can't imagine any other kind of existence), regarding a SPIRITUAL entity. As we've established, this is never going to happen. But unless you see a physical proof of God, it can never be proven to you.

In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence (or presence) of a spiritual entity, we must be able to evaluate spiritual evidence, which you've completely closed your mind to. Go read the OP, I made this observation to begin the argument.

Your circular reasoning is hilarious. In order to believe in the spiritual, you must first.....believe in the spiritual!

You say I have closed my mind to the spiritual, after saying the spiritual is made up of something which cannot be objectively observed. You may as well say I have closed my mind to Santa Clause, or Vishnu, or the Force.

I wonder, how is it that the spiritual can see and affect the physical, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true?

I notice you keep attempting to insert Darwin into your posts, as though assuming you have any idea what he would think of your arguments might lend them weight with those who don't already believe as you do. First, I think that that kind of speculation is pretty worthless; the long-dead cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of such claims. Second, it's a bit funny because Darwin, while he may have been the father of evolutionary theory, got a number of things wrong.

You say the heart, soul and mind can all perceive things other than the physical. The heart perceives nothing; it is but a muscle which pumps blood. The word really means emotions in the sense you appear to be using it, which are a product of the mind. And I have seen no evidence of a soul, so I cannot agree that it is something we all have. As to the mind, your claim that the human brain can perceive things not in the realm of the physical is, again, nothing but a completely subjective belief. There is no objective evidence of it. We can certainly imagine things, but that doesn't mean they exist independent of our imaginings. Unless you are trying to say the spiritual is created by the imaginings of intelligent life, I continue to disagree and await any actual evidence other than your unsubstantiated word.

In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence of a spiritual entity, it (or the reactions caused by it) must be objectively observable. As your definition of the spiritual doesn't allow for this, no, there can be no objective evaluation.

To get back to the whole life on other planets theme, you are oversimplifying enormously. All the ingredients are present and the recipe is easy? Who said the creation of life is 'easy'? The same elements may be present on other planets and moons in the solar system, but the conditions are not likely the same as they were on Earth when life first appeared.

I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that life occurred naturally. I have no idea if life may have been created or not. Aliens could have seeded the planet, a god or gods may have created life, or it may have arisen through spontaneous reaction.

Was it coincidence that the proper materials and conditions were here for life? It certainly could be. Again, when you take into account the vastness of the universe and the huge number of planets and moons within it, and the time it has possibly existed for, it becomes less and less difficult to imagine life arising spontaneously SOMEWHERE. And of course, it would take an intelligent form of life to eventually wonder how it could have happened where it did, why that particular planet, etc. etc. That you can look back and consider it overly coincidental might be an inevitable consequence of the arising of intelligent life.

That much of humanity has believed in the supernatural can be used as evidence that the supernatural exists. On the other hand, it can be used as evidence simply that humans are beings of imagination. We see something we don't understand, we want an explanation, we create one. Add in our often flawed perceptions and it is not difficult to see why people have always believed in the spiritual or supernatural.

Again, your evidence and arguments are based almost entirely on your subjective views.

 

[Mom]

I would never burn my Bible no matter if there is life on other planets are not.

You seem to have a lot of faith in your belief.

I'm just showing you how absurd it is to believe in something with zero proof. Do you get it now?

So there's PROBABLY/POSSIBLY life elsewhere, until proven for sure.

God has proven Himself to me in more ways that I can count.

Give me your 3 best ways, maybe you're onto something?

 

[Boss]

Your circular reasoning is hilarious. In order to believe in the spiritual, you must first.....believe in the spiritual!

Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you.

You say I have closed my mind to the spiritual, after saying the spiritual is made up of something which cannot be objectively observed. You may as well say I have closed my mind to Santa Clause, or Vishnu, or the Force.

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.

I wonder, how is it that the spiritual can see and affect the physical, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true?

Again, we have over 70k years of evidence that billions of people most certainly have spiritually connected to something. You see, this is where you are becoming confused. You assume, since you refuse to see spiritual evidence, no one else is able to. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, it's right there in front of you, but you continue to refuse to accept spiritual evidence.

I notice you keep attempting to insert Darwin into your posts, as though assuming you have any idea what he would think of your arguments might lend them weight with those who don't already believe as you do. First, I think that that kind of speculation is pretty worthless; the long-dead cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of such claims. Second, it's a bit funny because Darwin, while he may have been the father of evolutionary theory, got a number of things wrong.

Oh I know Darwin got things wrong, namely, his explanation of how a complex human eye evolved. He admits that if the eye can't be explained through natural selection, it can't be the product of evolution. Well, what he explained, and what many scientist believed until recently, is that a photoreceptor cell was a predecessor to the human eye, but the systems are completely different and work in a different way. The eye could not evolve the way Darwin explained.

I am not speculating anything with regard to Darwin, I've read his book. I understand the principles of natural selection and evolution, and I know that it simply can't have the predictive power to "know" what parts are needed before they are needed. IF natural selection IS this powerful, it is more of a miracle than God or an intelligent designer.

You say the heart, soul and mind can all perceive things other than the physical. The heart perceives nothing; it is but a muscle which pumps blood. The word really means emotions in the sense you appear to be using it, which are a product of the mind. And I have seen no evidence of a soul, so I cannot agree that it is something we all have. As to the mind, your claim that the human brain can perceive things not in the realm of the physical is, again, nothing but a completely subjective belief. There is no objective evidence of it. We can certainly imagine things, but that doesn't mean they exist independent of our imaginings. Unless you are trying to say the spiritual is created by the imaginings of intelligent life, I continue to disagree and await any actual evidence other than your unsubstantiated word.

All you are doing is confirming the point I made in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. This has been established, it was the very FIRST point I made in my argument, I don't understand why you continue to reaffirm it. There IS objective evidence for people who believe in spiritual nature. Billions and billions have attested to this, some went to their graves fighting to protect their spiritual beliefs. You believe there is no objective evidence because you reject spiritual evidence. I am not saying that to be insulting or rude, just stating a fact of life... you don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, you mind is closed to it, so you obviously can not see spiritual evidence, and dismiss it as imagination.

In order to have an objective evaluation of the existence of a spiritual entity, it (or the reactions caused by it) must be objectively observable. As your definition of the spiritual doesn't allow for this, no, there can be no objective evaluation.

The only way to objectively observe spiritual evidence, is to believe and accept spiritual nature. Billions and billions have done this, and because you can't do this, doesn't mean others can't. My definition of spiritual is "non-physical." I never claimed it couldn't be objectively observed and evaluated. It simply can't meet your criteria of providing physical evidence, because it isn't physical in nature.

To get back to the whole life on other planets theme, you are oversimplifying enormously. All the ingredients are present and the recipe is easy? Who said the creation of life is 'easy'? The same elements may be present on other planets and moons in the solar system, but the conditions are not likely the same as they were on Earth when life first appeared.

Well, the people who don't believe in intelligent design or creationism, claim that the miracle of life sprang forth from primordial soup when the planet was cooling. Then they posit a theory for abiogenesis, where all life sprang forth miraculously from a single cell organism. Were WE the only place around who got the primordial soup? Just so happened? We went down that road, there are a LOT of "just so happened" events to ponder. If any of them had "not so happened" we wouldn't have life on Earth.

You missed my question to you... WHY are the conditions not appropriate on other planets? Same universe, same materials available, same relative environment in the vacuum of space, why didn't other planets form atmospheres with layers to protect life from radiation and ultraviolet rays? 'Just so happens' we were the lucky planet? Now, we haven't looked at much of the universe, but we have looked at many planets and moons, and the only place in the universe we have found life is here. If life were some natural phenomenon, it would be happening elsewhere, all around us on other planets, which had the same elements to work with as Earth had, as we are all part of the same universe. But that is not what we see.

I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that life occurred naturally. I have no idea if life may have been created or not. Aliens could have seeded the planet, a god or gods may have created life, or it may have arisen through spontaneous reaction.

At least your mind is open to possibility. That's a start. The thread title is posed as a question. I did this to illustrate, it is a question that can only be answered if we are willing to accept and evaluate spiritual evidence. This is needed because we must first establish terminology, so that we are talking about the same things. You see, if someone does not believe in a spiritual nature, they can't process terms like "exist" in their minds. To "exist" can only mean, to physically exist, if you don't recognize spiritual existence. It's an illogical dichotomy for a spiritual god to physically exist. It can never meet that criteria, or it is no longer spiritual in nature.

Was it coincidence that the proper materials and conditions were here for life? It certainly could be. Again, when you take into account the vastness of the universe and the huge number of planets and moons within it, and the time it has possibly existed for, it becomes less and less difficult to imagine life arising spontaneously SOMEWHERE. And of course, it would take an intelligent form of life to eventually wonder how it could have happened where it did, why that particular planet, etc. etc. That you can look back and consider it overly coincidental might be an inevitable consequence of the arising of intelligent life.

At some point, continued coincidence starts becoming suspect, wouldn't you agree? If you went with a friend to Vegas, and they started gambling and winning, and this went on all night, you'd say... hey, it's a coincidence, the got lucky... but then, a second and third night, same thing, weeks roll by, they can't lose. A month later, they are making headline news as the luckiest person ever, they haven't lost yet... they keep winning every time... at what point to do you admit that it's not just luck and coincidence? I can accept that one or maybe two things, happened by coincidence. But when I see literally millions of things that had to happen to a certain degree and order, in harmony with other things happening, over and over for millions of years, the astounding nature of our climate system and weather, the wondrous beauty we see in nature, the intricacy of mechanical engineering of the simplest organisms. Life is amazing and miraculous, it simply did not happen by accident.

That much of humanity has believed in the supernatural can be used as evidence that the supernatural exists. On the other hand, it can be used as evidence simply that humans are beings of imagination. We see something we don't understand, we want an explanation, we create one. Add in our often flawed perceptions and it is not difficult to see why people have always believed in the spiritual or supernatural.

Again, your evidence and arguments are based almost entirely on your subjective views.

You dismiss spirituality as "imagination." As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination.

To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.

 

[Mom]

Your circular reasoning is hilarious. In order to believe in the spiritual, you must first.....believe in the spiritual!

Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence. The same applies to physical science. If this is funny to you, I am sorry. It's a relatively simplistic concept of logic and common sense, it shouldn't have to be pointed out to you.

You say I have closed my mind to the spiritual, after saying the spiritual is made up of something which cannot be objectively observed. You may as well say I have closed my mind to Santa Clause, or Vishnu, or the Force.

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.



Again, we have over 70k years of evidence that billions of people most certainly have spiritually connected to something. You see, this is where you are becoming confused. You assume, since you refuse to see spiritual evidence, no one else is able to. The spiritual evidence is overwhelming, it's right there in front of you, but you continue to refuse to accept spiritual evidence.



Oh I know Darwin got things wrong, namely, his explanation of how a complex human eye evolved. He admits that if the eye can't be explained through natural selection, it can't be the product of evolution. Well, what he explained, and what many scientist believed until recently, is that a photoreceptor cell was a predecessor to the human eye, but the systems are completely different and work in a different way. The eye could not evolve the way Darwin explained.

I am not speculating anything with regard to Darwin, I've read his book. I understand the principles of natural selection and evolution, and I know that it simply can't have the predictive power to "know" what parts are needed before they are needed. IF natural selection IS this powerful, it is more of a miracle than God or an intelligent designer.



All you are doing is confirming the point I made in the first two paragraphs of the OP. You don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence. This has been established, it was the very FIRST point I made in my argument, I don't understand why you continue to reaffirm it. There IS objective evidence for people who believe in spiritual nature. Billions and billions have attested to this, some went to their graves fighting to protect their spiritual beliefs. You believe there is no objective evidence because you reject spiritual evidence. I am not saying that to be insulting or rude, just stating a fact of life... you don't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, you mind is closed to it, so you obviously can not see spiritual evidence, and dismiss it as imagination.



The only way to objectively observe spiritual evidence, is to believe and accept spiritual nature. Billions and billions have done this, and because you can't do this, doesn't mean others can't. My definition of spiritual is "non-physical." I never claimed it couldn't be objectively observed and evaluated. It simply can't meet your criteria of providing physical evidence, because it isn't physical in nature.



Well, the people who don't believe in intelligent design or creationism, claim that the miracle of life sprang forth from primordial soup when the planet was cooling. Then they posit a theory for abiogenesis, where all life sprang forth miraculously from a single cell organism. Were WE the only place around who got the primordial soup? Just so happened? We went down that road, there are a LOT of "just so happened" events to ponder. If any of them had "not so happened" we wouldn't have life on Earth.

You missed my question to you... WHY are the conditions not appropriate on other planets? Same universe, same materials available, same relative environment in the vacuum of space, why didn't other planets form atmospheres with layers to protect life from radiation and ultraviolet rays? 'Just so happens' we were the lucky planet? Now, we haven't looked at much of the universe, but we have looked at many planets and moons, and the only place in the universe we have found life is here. If life were some natural phenomenon, it would be happening elsewhere, all around us on other planets, which had the same elements to work with as Earth had, as we are all part of the same universe. But that is not what we see.



At least your mind is open to possibility. That's a start. The thread title is posed as a question. I did this to illustrate, it is a question that can only be answered if we are willing to accept and evaluate spiritual evidence. This is needed because we must first establish terminology, so that we are talking about the same things. You see, if someone does not believe in a spiritual nature, they can't process terms like "exist" in their minds. To "exist" can only mean, to physically exist, if you don't recognize spiritual existence. It's an illogical dichotomy for a spiritual god to physically exist. It can never meet that criteria, or it is no longer spiritual in nature.

Was it coincidence that the proper materials and conditions were here for life? It certainly could be. Again, when you take into account the vastness of the universe and the huge number of planets and moons within it, and the time it has possibly existed for, it becomes less and less difficult to imagine life arising spontaneously SOMEWHERE. And of course, it would take an intelligent form of life to eventually wonder how it could have happened where it did, why that particular planet, etc. etc. That you can look back and consider it overly coincidental might be an inevitable consequence of the arising of intelligent life.

At some point, continued coincidence starts becoming suspect, wouldn't you agree? If you went with a friend to Vegas, and they started gambling and winning, and this went on all night, you'd say... hey, it's a coincidence, the got lucky... but then, a second and third night, same thing, weeks roll by, they can't lose. A month later, they are making headline news as the luckiest person ever, they haven't lost yet... they keep winning every time... at what point to do you admit that it's not just luck and coincidence? I can accept that one or maybe two things, happened by coincidence. But when I see literally millions of things that had to happen to a certain degree and order, in harmony with other things happening, over and over for millions of years, the astounding nature of our climate system and weather, the wondrous beauty we see in nature, the intricacy of mechanical engineering of the simplest organisms. Life is amazing and miraculous, it simply did not happen by accident.

That much of humanity has believed in the supernatural can be used as evidence that the supernatural exists. On the other hand, it can be used as evidence simply that humans are beings of imagination. We see something we don't understand, we want an explanation, we create one. Add in our often flawed perceptions and it is not difficult to see why people have always believed in the spiritual or supernatural.

Again, your evidence and arguments are based almost entirely on your subjective views.

You dismiss spirituality as "imagination." As I said, you have closed your mind to spiritual evidence, you think it's over-fertile imaginations run wild. Ironically, I do believe this explains Religion. I think all organized religions are simply man's imagination, trying to grapple with this spiritual thing they are intrinsically connected to. There can be no denying, humans are spiritually connected to something, it's not imagination.

To believe spirituality is merely man's imagination, you relegate man to one of the stupidest forms of life to ever exist, because nothing else we know of, does this. Animals do not behave inherently for all of their existence because of something they imagine, which simply isn't there. It doesn't happen with any living organism we know of, but you claim it's happened with humans, for all of our existence. I reject that argument.

What's spiritual evidence?

 

[Boss]

What's spiritual evidence?

Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it. But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.

 

[Mom]

What's spiritual evidence?

Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it. But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.

cmon man, sum it up for me, I don't have time for 37 pages.

 

[HUGGY]

What's spiritual evidence?

Read the thread, there is 37 pages of it. But you'll dismiss and reject it, because you don't accept spiritual evidence. You can't accept it, I understand this, it's why I began my argument establishing this first.

DON'T READ THE THREAD !!!!

You will NEVER get back that time in your life !!!!



True Story