Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[S.J.]

Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.

Again, you still don't understand what I was saying. Instead of condescending, try thinking about it.

What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.

No, that's not what I'm doing, and you're not thinking. Try again.

 

[Boss]

What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.

Fossils are evidence that something once existed. It is not evidence that it was something else at an earlier time or something else at a later time. You are trying to turn it into evidence of that, when it's not. You find similarity to other things, and assume that it must be a creature in transition. You haven't proven this, and you can't prove it. We can't even make it happen in a lab with all the technology known to man, but you firmly have faith that it must've happened.

 

[newpolitics]

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

Actually, its quite simple. What you said was illogical, and I tried to show you how. Let me try again: It is impossible, definitionally, to have faith if you have evidence. Evolution has evidence, therefore, there can be no faith.

In order for anything to be determined "evidence" requires faith. You must have faith in the validity as evidence, do you not?

I see some evidence of changes within genera, but I also see species who haven't changed at all. I see no evidence of cross-genus speciation, which is required, if evolution explains origin. The FACT is, evolution doesn't deal with origin, it's about the process of evolving once life had already originated. Origin is theorized in Abiogenesis, and there are about two dozen working variations on that. No valid "evidence" exists to support any of it.

Faith, being defined as belief without evidence, has no place in a discussion about evidence itself. It would have to do with logic. This is simply an attempt by theists to introduce undue skepticism with respect to evidential standards for evolution, which is special pleading to heighten the standard to disallow any evidence at all, when evidence for their god claim is simply a book written two thousand years ago, or the fact that humans have believed in the supernatural for 70,000 years. If you are keeping your evidential standards consistent, this type of glaring inconsistency could not be possible. This is another example of intellectual dishonesty by you and SJ.

 

[newpolitics]

Again, you still don't understand what I was saying. Instead of condescending, try thinking about it.

What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.

No, that's not what I'm doing, and you're not thinking. Try again.

What you are doing is illogical. Enough said. Not to mention this is a red herring from the discussion at hand, and a dishonest tactic to steer away from what I was trying to get at. This thread is not about evolution.

 

[S.J.]

What you are doing is questioning whether fossils are even evidence of anything. I don't know how to help you there. If you are going to engage in this level of skepticism, then you have no justification for believing in god, given a complete lack of evidence. So try to be a little consistent in your evidential standards, rather than special pleading with your "god" evidence.

No, that's not what I'm doing, and you're not thinking. Try again.

What you are doing is illogical. Enough said. Not to mention this is a red herring from the discussion at hand, and a dishonest tactic to steer away from what I was trying to get at. This thread is not about evolution.

Damn, you are thick.

 

[newpolitics]

No, that's not what I'm doing, and you're not thinking. Try again.

What you are doing is illogical. Enough said. Not to mention this is a red herring from the discussion at hand, and a dishonest tactic to steer away from what I was trying to get at. This thread is not about evolution.

Damn, you are thick.

Damn, you are an immature little prick who can't debate.

 

[S.J.]

What you are doing is illogical. Enough said. Not to mention this is a red herring from the discussion at hand, and a dishonest tactic to steer away from what I was trying to get at. This thread is not about evolution.

Damn, you are thick.

Damn, you are an immature little prick who can't debate.

LOL. For somebody who brags so much at being an intellectual, you sure are dumb.

 

[newpolitics]

Damn, you are thick.

Damn, you are an immature little prick who can't debate.

LOL. For somebody who brags so much at being an intellectual, you sure are dumb.

When do I ever brag about being an intellectual? Stop lying.

 

[S.J.]

Damn, you are an immature little prick who can't debate.

LOL. For somebody who brags so much at being an intellectual, you sure are dumb.

When do I ever brag about being an intellectual? Stop lying.

Boss understood what I was saying, but Mr. Intellectual Scientist didn't have a ******* clue. This is priceless.

 

[newpolitics]

LOL. For somebody who brags so much at being an intellectual, you sure are dumb.

When do I ever brag about being an intellectual? Stop lying.

Boss understood what I was saying, but Mr. Intellectual Scientist didn't have a ******* clue. This is priceless.

Cool. I'm not going to be roped in by your immaturity. If you want to debate, lets do it. If you want to be a little child who takes pot shots, then shut the **** up and spare me your ridiculous antics.

 

[S.J.]

When do I ever brag about being an intellectual? Stop lying.

Boss understood what I was saying, but Mr. Intellectual Scientist didn't have a ******* clue. This is priceless.

Cool. I'm not going to be roped in by your immaturity. If you want to debate, lets do it. If you want to be a little child who takes pot shots, then shut the **** up.

DUH!

 

[newpolitics]

Boss understood what I was saying, but Mr. Intellectual Scientist didn't have a ******* clue. This is priceless.

Cool. I'm not going to be roped in by your immaturity. If you want to debate, lets do it. If you want to be a little child who takes pot shots, then shut the **** up.

DUH!

You can't be this stupid. It's just not feasible.

 

[S.J.]

Cool. I'm not going to be roped in by your immaturity. If you want to debate, lets do it. If you want to be a little child who takes pot shots, then shut the **** up.

DUH!

You can't be this stupid. It's just not feasible.

Nice try.

 

[newpolitics]

DUH!

You can't be this stupid. It's just not feasible.

Nice try.

All you are interested in is a flame war. When you happen to grow up, maybe we can try this again. Until then, I'm through with you. You are too much of a prick, without any good points to make.

 

[S.J.]

You can't be this stupid. It's just not feasible.

Nice try.

All you are interested in is a flame war. When you happen to grow up, maybe we can try this again. Until then, I'm through with you. You are too much of a prick, without any good points to make.

I'd love to debate you but not if I have to draw you a ******* picture every time I say something. I'm used to debating people with minds that operate at a normal speed. Yours' is just to damn slow. Get back to me when you figure out what I was saying, dumbass. It wasn't that difficult (not for most people, anyway).

 

[newpolitics]

Nice try.

All you are interested in is a flame war. When you happen to grow up, maybe we can try this again. Until then, I'm through with you. You are too much of a prick, without any good points to make.

I'd love to debate you but not if I have to draw you a ******* picture every time I say something. I'm used to debating people with minds that operate at a normal speed. Yours' is just to damn slow. Get back to me when you figure out what I was saying, dumbass. It wasn't that difficult (not for most people, anyway).

You've lost my respect. I don't give a **** about you. Say what you will. You made a nonsensical claim which I deconstructed, and you can't handle it. You insist that it made sense, when it didn't. We are at impasse. This is not an excuse for you to start name-calling, yet this is how you behave. Again, when you grow up and can treat people in a civil manner, then we can debate. Until then, **** you, and **** off.

 

[S.J.]

All you are interested in is a flame war. When you happen to grow up, maybe we can try this again. Until then, I'm through with you. You are too much of a prick, without any good points to make.

I'd love to debate you but not if I have to draw you a ******* picture every time I say something. I'm used to debating people with minds that operate at a normal speed. Yours' is just to damn slow. Get back to me when you figure out what I was saying, dumbass. It wasn't that difficult (not for most people, anyway).

You've lost my respect. I don't give a **** about you. Say what you will. You made a nonsensical claim which I deconstructed, and you can't handle it. You insist that it made sense, when it didn't. We are at impasse. This is not an excuse for you to start name-calling, yet this is how you behave. Again, when you grow up and can treat people in a civil manner, then we can debate. Until then, **** you, and **** off.

I made a simple statement and you totally didn't get it. You still don't get it. Funny you should lecture me about treating people in a civil manner, then say "**** you, and **** off". Please don't confirm your stupidity by saying you don't see the irony in your post.

 

[newpolitics]

I'd love to debate you but not if I have to draw you a ******* picture every time I say something. I'm used to debating people with minds that operate at a normal speed. Yours' is just to damn slow. Get back to me when you figure out what I was saying, dumbass. It wasn't that difficult (not for most people, anyway).

You've lost my respect. I don't give a **** about you. Say what you will. You made a nonsensical claim which I deconstructed, and you can't handle it. You insist that it made sense, when it didn't. We are at impasse. This is not an excuse for you to start name-calling, yet this is how you behave. Again, when you grow up and can treat people in a civil manner, then we can debate. Until then, **** you, and **** off.

I made a simple statement and you totally didn't get it. You still don't get it. Funny you should lecture me about treating people in a civil manner, then say "**** you, and **** off". Please don't confirm your stupidity by saying you don't see the irony in your post.

I don't care enough about you to treat you in a civil manner. We are way past that, and you know it.

 

[S.J.]

You've lost my respect. I don't give a **** about you. Say what you will. You made a nonsensical claim which I deconstructed, and you can't handle it. You insist that it made sense, when it didn't. We are at impasse. This is not an excuse for you to start name-calling, yet this is how you behave. Again, when you grow up and can treat people in a civil manner, then we can debate. Until then, **** you, and **** off.

I made a simple statement and you totally didn't get it. You still don't get it. Funny you should lecture me about treating people in a civil manner, then say "**** you, and **** off". Please don't confirm your stupidity by saying you don't see the irony in your post.

I don't care enough about you to treat you in a civil manner. We are way past that, and you know it.

Well, that's a given, but aren't you going to comment on your remark?

 

[newpolitics]

I made a simple statement and you totally didn't get it. You still don't get it. Funny you should lecture me about treating people in a civil manner, then say "**** you, and **** off". Please don't confirm your stupidity by saying you don't see the irony in your post.

I don't care enough about you to treat you in a civil manner. We are way past that, and you know it.

Well, that's a given, but aren't you going to comment on your remark?

You don't seem to take a hint.