there HAS to be a God!!
- Thread starter Furio
- Start date
I’m not generalizing, not sure where you got that idea from, what I was talking about were the ridiculous religious beliefs that the Ancient Egyptians had, and yes any notion of superiority over pigment in ones skin is also arbitrary and is only used to make another culture to become subordinate and inferior. You are going to have to describe what they were advanced in compared to now to have any debate over this topic, be specific.
Read the Kybalion, first of all.
Obvious things are the pyramids, for instance. Besides that the Kybalion states scientific fact that some people knew in ancient egypt like the idea that nothing is static. Everything is constantly moving and vibrating. Of course these ideas back then would have been persecuted against. Kybalion is eoteric in its teachings.
Obvious things are the pyramids, for instance. Besides that the Kybalion states scientific fact that some people knew in ancient egypt like the idea that nothing is static. Everything is constantly moving and vibrating. Of course these ideas back then would have been persecuted against. Kybalion is eoteric in its teachings.
LOL!
I like that.
Well according to the bible, we actually came from Noah and his family.
People love to argue against the belief in God and the bible with science and history.
There's as much science supporting the belief in God as there is science supporting evolution.
But the support for evolution is deminishing every day.
And there is no evidence to disprove the bible.
History through Science and archeology has proven most of the bible to be true.
Genetic science has just proven that we are all related.
Meaning that we came from the same mother a few thousand years ago.
Also meaning that human life was nearly extinct at one point in history. Perhaps the great flood.......
Hmmmm.....
And archeology suggests that there was a catastrophic flood at one point in history.
Peep out the "about all these post bout heaven , hell and afterlife" thread for more info....
I like that.
Well according to the bible, we actually came from Noah and his family.
People love to argue against the belief in God and the bible with science and history.
There's as much science supporting the belief in God as there is science supporting evolution.
But the support for evolution is deminishing every day.
And there is no evidence to disprove the bible.
History through Science and archeology has proven most of the bible to be true.
Genetic science has just proven that we are all related.
Meaning that we came from the same mother a few thousand years ago.
Also meaning that human life was nearly extinct at one point in history. Perhaps the great flood.......
Hmmmm.....
And archeology suggests that there was a catastrophic flood at one point in history.
Peep out the "about all these post bout heaven , hell and afterlife" thread for more info....
I have never heard someone be more incorrect in my entire life... All of Darwin’s theories have been nothing but supported and it even says that in print in my college biology book. Also the bible is as flawed as an uncut diamond....
If you do not want to read all of this, you should go here and read Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution… http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
'The evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the smallest to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them. According to this scenario, men and modern apes have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became the apes of today while another group that followed another branch of evolution became the men of today.
If evolution is mentioned to laypeople, typically the first thing that emerges is human evolution. Human evolution is, after all, the part people find most hard to swallow. Most can accept the fact that bacteria, plants, birds, and horses evolve. However, people employ a double standard when confronted with human evolution. Perhaps the matter of having an ape as an ancestor is actually the main reason why creationists try to refute evolution.
On the contrary, the available evidence points consistently to the ape-to-human scenario (although that statement is not suitable, because humans are still apes). Humans and other extant great apes (chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan) shared many features. The extant ape species most similar to humans is the chimpanzee (Pan). Presented here are studies that confirm the similarity between humans and other extant great apes.
Molecular evidence: there have been claims that humans and chimps are 99% similar in their genetic constitution. The studies referred have shown that, based on small samples (up to 30.000 base pairs) human and chimp nuclear DNA are highly identical (only 1% divergence). Notice the small difference in the noncoding DNA. Being non-functional, the similarity cannot be attributed to function or convergent evolution. Noncoding DNA similarity is the genetic equivalent of vestigial organs; both imply common descent. In addition, the fact that the 99% similarity came not from only one but many analysis strongly suggest that the similarity was not due to sampling errors.
The molecular evidence is still open to further inquiry. The human genome size is estimated to be 3.000.000.000 bases (International Human Genome Mapping Consortium 2001: 934) and the chimp genome is estimated to be as large. Therefore, if the current difference data is correct, then a difference of about 30.000.000 bases (1%) is to be expected from human and chimp genomes. The Human Genome Project is under way, and efforts have been made to establish a Chimpanzee Genome Project (Varki 2000: 1065; Hacia 2001: 637)
Anatomical: Gibbs et al. (2000, 2002) attempted a phylogenetic analysis of 171 hominoid soft-tissue characteristics (which include muscles, nerves, and blood vessels) from five extant ape genera (Hylobates, Pongo, Pan, Gorilla, and Homo). The results are consistent with molecular phylogenies which support a Homo-Pan clade with Gorilla as the nearest sister group. In vernacular terms, this means that chimps are more similar to humans than they are to gorillas.
There are two other strong points of this analysis. First, the convergence with molecular results show that support for the close relationship between humans and chimps come from two lines of evidence, thus unlikely to be incidental. Second, Gibbs et al.'s study was done by literature research, most of which were done in a time where phylogenetic hypotheses was not a goal and the close link between humans and chimps has not become a scientific viewpoint (Pilbeam 2000).
Interestingly, Collard & Wood (2000) and Pilbeam (2000) also pointed out that phylogenies based on hard-tissue (dental & skeletal) characters are less reliable than molecular and soft-tissue phylogenies. Pilbeam (2000) suggested that soft tissues are more conservative and less prone to observer bias. If soft-tissue analysis is more reliable than hard-tissue analysis, then further tests on other groups should reflect such a distinction.
RECENT TAXONOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Humans are apes. Or, apes are really humans.
These days, chimps and gorillas are also considered hominids. The traditional classification which divide humans (Hominidae) and great apes (Pongidae) has been corrected in order to include new molecular taxonomic information. At present, the family Pongidae is no longer used, and the great apes are grouped with humans in Hominidae; the chimpanzee is grouped in the same sub-family (Homininae) with humans, extant and extinct. Wood & Richmond (2000) summarizes the new taxonomic arrangement of apes, in the following table:
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hylobatidae:
Genus Hylobates (gibbons, siamangs)
Family Hominidae ('hominids'):
Subfamily Ponginae:
Genus Pongo (orangutan)
Subfamily Gorillinae:
Genus Gorilla
Subfamily Homininae:
Tribe Panini
Genus Pan (chimpanzee):
Tribe Hominini ('hominins')
Subtribe Australopithecina ('australopiths'):
Genus Ardipithecus
Genus Australopithecus
Genus Paranthropus
Subtribe Hominina:
Genus Homo (human)
The molecular evidence shows that humans are, taxonomically speaking, apes. Therefore, even the phrase 'humans have evolved from apes' lost its meaning. We are still apes, albeit a special & successful one.
If you do not want to read all of this, you should go here and read Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution… http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
'The evolutionists wrote the scenario of human evolution by arranging some of the skulls that suited their purpose in an order from the smallest to the biggest and scattering the skulls of some extinct human races among them. According to this scenario, men and modern apes have common ancestors. These creatures evolved in time and some of them became the apes of today while another group that followed another branch of evolution became the men of today.
If evolution is mentioned to laypeople, typically the first thing that emerges is human evolution. Human evolution is, after all, the part people find most hard to swallow. Most can accept the fact that bacteria, plants, birds, and horses evolve. However, people employ a double standard when confronted with human evolution. Perhaps the matter of having an ape as an ancestor is actually the main reason why creationists try to refute evolution.
On the contrary, the available evidence points consistently to the ape-to-human scenario (although that statement is not suitable, because humans are still apes). Humans and other extant great apes (chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan) shared many features. The extant ape species most similar to humans is the chimpanzee (Pan). Presented here are studies that confirm the similarity between humans and other extant great apes.
Molecular evidence: there have been claims that humans and chimps are 99% similar in their genetic constitution. The studies referred have shown that, based on small samples (up to 30.000 base pairs) human and chimp nuclear DNA are highly identical (only 1% divergence). Notice the small difference in the noncoding DNA. Being non-functional, the similarity cannot be attributed to function or convergent evolution. Noncoding DNA similarity is the genetic equivalent of vestigial organs; both imply common descent. In addition, the fact that the 99% similarity came not from only one but many analysis strongly suggest that the similarity was not due to sampling errors.
The molecular evidence is still open to further inquiry. The human genome size is estimated to be 3.000.000.000 bases (International Human Genome Mapping Consortium 2001: 934) and the chimp genome is estimated to be as large. Therefore, if the current difference data is correct, then a difference of about 30.000.000 bases (1%) is to be expected from human and chimp genomes. The Human Genome Project is under way, and efforts have been made to establish a Chimpanzee Genome Project (Varki 2000: 1065; Hacia 2001: 637)
Anatomical: Gibbs et al. (2000, 2002) attempted a phylogenetic analysis of 171 hominoid soft-tissue characteristics (which include muscles, nerves, and blood vessels) from five extant ape genera (Hylobates, Pongo, Pan, Gorilla, and Homo). The results are consistent with molecular phylogenies which support a Homo-Pan clade with Gorilla as the nearest sister group. In vernacular terms, this means that chimps are more similar to humans than they are to gorillas.
There are two other strong points of this analysis. First, the convergence with molecular results show that support for the close relationship between humans and chimps come from two lines of evidence, thus unlikely to be incidental. Second, Gibbs et al.'s study was done by literature research, most of which were done in a time where phylogenetic hypotheses was not a goal and the close link between humans and chimps has not become a scientific viewpoint (Pilbeam 2000).
Interestingly, Collard & Wood (2000) and Pilbeam (2000) also pointed out that phylogenies based on hard-tissue (dental & skeletal) characters are less reliable than molecular and soft-tissue phylogenies. Pilbeam (2000) suggested that soft tissues are more conservative and less prone to observer bias. If soft-tissue analysis is more reliable than hard-tissue analysis, then further tests on other groups should reflect such a distinction.
RECENT TAXONOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Humans are apes. Or, apes are really humans.
These days, chimps and gorillas are also considered hominids. The traditional classification which divide humans (Hominidae) and great apes (Pongidae) has been corrected in order to include new molecular taxonomic information. At present, the family Pongidae is no longer used, and the great apes are grouped with humans in Hominidae; the chimpanzee is grouped in the same sub-family (Homininae) with humans, extant and extinct. Wood & Richmond (2000) summarizes the new taxonomic arrangement of apes, in the following table:
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hylobatidae:
Genus Hylobates (gibbons, siamangs)
Family Hominidae ('hominids'):
Subfamily Ponginae:
Genus Pongo (orangutan)
Subfamily Gorillinae:
Genus Gorilla
Subfamily Homininae:
Tribe Panini
Genus Pan (chimpanzee):
Tribe Hominini ('hominins')
Subtribe Australopithecina ('australopiths'):
Genus Ardipithecus
Genus Australopithecus
Genus Paranthropus
Subtribe Hominina:
Genus Homo (human)
The molecular evidence shows that humans are, taxonomically speaking, apes. Therefore, even the phrase 'humans have evolved from apes' lost its meaning. We are still apes, albeit a special & successful one.
I've never seen someone so mislead in my life.
Well actually I have LOL!
Res,
You have no idea that I once were like you.
That was about 2 or 3 months ago.
I was so arrogant thinking that I was being told the truth.
I mean, they make evolution seem like it's the shit in school.
But that is until I went around and did some research on my own.
Obviously something you haven't done.
Sorry bro, you're fighting a losing battle.....
Any how, prepare for my sword....
First of, there is no flaws in the bible.
You are being mislead by the ignorance of those who told you this, and by your own ignorance of the bible.
You know nothing son, you haven't even read it yourself.
So pick it up like I did and prove it wrong!
Go ahead, that's what I did.
Don't be afraid....
THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY
MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED
"Prof. H. H. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 57, says, "Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution." "If all the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that are incapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said to have been advanced to a proven theory." Note this admission by a leading evolutionist.
Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from the primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul of man came by evolution. All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. In addition, there are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals should ever be proved possible.
In this volume, the claim is made that the evolution of man is irreconcilable with a large number of facts. If investigation proves that we have erred in any statement of facts, or if our reasoning in any one argument or more is fallacious, we will not lose our case, as long as evolution remains irreconcilable with any: other single fact. If every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts. One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution. And there are many!"
THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE
"The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.
The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species.
All these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noah and of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which denies that unity within the last two million years"
Well actually I have LOL!
Res,
You have no idea that I once were like you.
That was about 2 or 3 months ago.
I was so arrogant thinking that I was being told the truth.
I mean, they make evolution seem like it's the shit in school.
But that is until I went around and did some research on my own.
Obviously something you haven't done.
Sorry bro, you're fighting a losing battle.....
Any how, prepare for my sword....
First of, there is no flaws in the bible.
You are being mislead by the ignorance of those who told you this, and by your own ignorance of the bible.
You know nothing son, you haven't even read it yourself.
So pick it up like I did and prove it wrong!
Go ahead, that's what I did.
Don't be afraid....
THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY
MATHEMATICALLY DISPROVED
"Prof. H. H. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 57, says, "Reluctant as we may be to admit it, honesty compels the evolutionist to admit that there is no absolute proof of organic evolution." "If all the facts are in accord with it, and none are found that are incapable of being reconciled with it, a working hypothesis is said to have been advanced to a proven theory." Note this admission by a leading evolutionist.
Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from the primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul of man came by evolution. All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. In addition, there are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals should ever be proved possible.
In this volume, the claim is made that the evolution of man is irreconcilable with a large number of facts. If investigation proves that we have erred in any statement of facts, or if our reasoning in any one argument or more is fallacious, we will not lose our case, as long as evolution remains irreconcilable with any: other single fact. If every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts. One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution. And there are many!"
THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE
"The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible.
The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species.
All these facts pointing to the unity of the race in the days of Noah and of Adam are irreconcilable with the theory of evolution which denies that unity within the last two million years"
Gordon Rattray Taylor in The Great Evolution Mystery....
“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”
Ernst Mayr in Systematics and the Origin of Species....
“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.”
“Molecules-to-man evolution is the theory that everything made itself, and that no creator was necessary. But this requires that non-intelligent processes could produce vast quantities of functional complex information. Even the simplest free-living organism carries the equivalent information of a 500-page book; humans have as much information as a thousand 500-page volumes. What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it -- selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.”
And here's a quote from your idol
Charles Darwin, in a personal letter to Asa Gray in February 1860..
“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility or survival, would seem to be irrelevant.”
Darwin says -- in The Origin of Species Chapter VI, Difficulties of the Theory, Utilitarian Doctrine, How Far True: Beauty, How Acquired:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
Never! Don't ever jump into conclusions before knowing everything.
You are shooting from the hip because everything that you know comes from what "they" teach you.
You can find all the molecular info you like.
God created man and animal using the same parts.
Let me ask you this, since we evolved from apes, why is it that there is still apes around????
They should've fased out millions of years ago...
Go here for more info if you dare.
They throw your your human evolution theory down the toilet....
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
PS....Death blow....
Isaac Newton in Opticks, McGraw-Hill, pages 369-370, says:
“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?”
Oh yeah and isn't pig DNA very similar to human DNA?
Why haven't scientists suggested that we evolved from pigs too????
“It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world-flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”
Ernst Mayr in Systematics and the Origin of Species....
“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.”
“Molecules-to-man evolution is the theory that everything made itself, and that no creator was necessary. But this requires that non-intelligent processes could produce vast quantities of functional complex information. Even the simplest free-living organism carries the equivalent information of a 500-page book; humans have as much information as a thousand 500-page volumes. What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it -- selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.”
And here's a quote from your idol
Charles Darwin, in a personal letter to Asa Gray in February 1860..
“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility or survival, would seem to be irrelevant.”
Darwin says -- in The Origin of Species Chapter VI, Difficulties of the Theory, Utilitarian Doctrine, How Far True: Beauty, How Acquired:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
Never! Don't ever jump into conclusions before knowing everything.
You are shooting from the hip because everything that you know comes from what "they" teach you.
You can find all the molecular info you like.
God created man and animal using the same parts.
Let me ask you this, since we evolved from apes, why is it that there is still apes around????
They should've fased out millions of years ago...
Go here for more info if you dare.
They throw your your human evolution theory down the toilet....
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
PS....Death blow....
Isaac Newton in Opticks, McGraw-Hill, pages 369-370, says:
“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?”
Oh yeah and isn't pig DNA very similar to human DNA?
Why haven't scientists suggested that we evolved from pigs too????
don't belive in what we say. I will speak for the three of us. When I say is all I ask is that you test it. Believe in what you want. Honestly I could care less. All I ask is that you should test your own ideas and others. If what I say and the others say (believers) say is not true then deny us. But what I see, I am going to take to the gravewith me.
If you want to deny us and what we see. Go ahead. My day goes on, as well as the rest of us 'irrational' kids....
If you want to deny us and what we see. Go ahead. My day goes on, as well as the rest of us 'irrational' kids....
@2-0-Sixx
your "logic" and "reasoning" only gets you so far. You accept only half of reality and close your mind to another part yet you say that you are open minded. To me God is proven in the very breath I take. You havevn't realized what God is yet and insist on debating against a completely conceptual being. If what you know is holding you from further truth, let it go. Don't wear ideas and concepts around your neck. Understand them and move on. The concepts you have spoken of hold no supremacy. Matter of fact they aren't even on the same, fundamental level to be argued. You are arguing the half against the whole. The half remains within the whole; you can't divide reality against itself without falling.
your "logic" and "reasoning" only gets you so far. You accept only half of reality and close your mind to another part yet you say that you are open minded. To me God is proven in the very breath I take. You havevn't realized what God is yet and insist on debating against a completely conceptual being. If what you know is holding you from further truth, let it go. Don't wear ideas and concepts around your neck. Understand them and move on. The concepts you have spoken of hold no supremacy. Matter of fact they aren't even on the same, fundamental level to be argued. You are arguing the half against the whole. The half remains within the whole; you can't divide reality against itself without falling.