pro life and pro choice the words

[tecoyah]

God made those just as he made the Beaver’s dam and the Eagle’s nest.

God Made Guns?

Freakin' No Way.....

 

[Jerry]

God Made Guns?

Freakin' No Way.....

Glock.

That's all I need to say

But no, really, Future can explain it better than I can.

 

[FutureIncoming]

God Made Guns? Freakin' No Way.....

But no, really, Future can explain it better than I can.

As is becoming more common recently, Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no data supporting the claim that God made anything at all, much less beaver dams, eagle nests, vibrators, or guns. Logically, in fact, if anyone dares claim that God is a prerequisite for something to exist, then that does not explain any claim of God's existence. Ergo, since at least one thing (God) must be able to exist without needing God as the Source of that existence, there is no reason to claim that everything else requires God, in order to exist. Assuming God exists, the "mechanism" that produced God could well have produced the physical Universe, independently. And inside that Universe, Evolution is as associated with beaver dams as beavers, and with eagle nests as eagles (and with human tools as humans).

 

[Jerry]

As is becoming more common recently, Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no data supporting the claim that God made anything at all, much less beaver dams, eagle nests, vibrators, or guns. Logically, in fact, if anyone dares claim that God is a prerequisite for something to exist, then that does not explain any claim of God's existence. Ergo, since at least one thing (God) must be able to exist without needing God as the Source of that existence, there is no reason to claim that everything else requires God, in order to exist. Assuming God exists, the "mechanism" that produced God could well have produced the physical Universe, independently. And inside that Universe, Evolution is as associated with beaver dams as beavers, and with eagle nests as eagles (and with human tools as humans).

That's quite a change of tune from the one you had when, maybe a month ago, you agreed with me that cars and jet aircraft are as naturally occurring as beaver dams. In fact, you used "beaver dams" as your example in that agreement.

If I can find a key word search for threads I'll go back and see if I can find your quote.

 

[Kelzie]

That's quite a change of tune from the one you had when, maybe a month ago, you agreed with me that cars and jet aircraft are as naturally occurring as beaver dams. In fact, you used "beaver dams" as your example in that agreement.

If I can find a key word search for threads I'll go back and see if I can find your quote.

Maybe this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html

Or this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html

Merry Christmas sugar. You can do it yourself under "Advance Search"

 

[Jerry]

Maybe this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html

Or this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html

Merry Christmas sugar. You can do it yourself under "Advance Search"

Gah...sweeet!

 

[teacher]

Maybe this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html

Or this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html

Merry Christmas sugar. You can do it yourself under "Advance Search"

When this guy...



says the K girl is sharp, you'd better be sure of yourself. I think she takes it easy on you guys.

teacher has found a red marker, a way to load anything to paint and have my way with it, then post. Now if I could just come up with a way to use this for abuse.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no data supporting the claim that God made anything at all, much less beaver dams, eagle nests, vibrators, or guns.

That's quite a change of tune from the one you had when, maybe a month ago, you agreed with me that cars and jet aircraft are as naturally occurring as beaver dams. In fact, you used "beaver dams" as your example in that agreement.

Maybe this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/213617-post10.html Or this one: http://www.debatepolitics.com/216298-post64.html

I have examined the specified postings (from about 6 months ago), and extracted what seems to be the relevant parts below:

I see your delusion perfectly. You somehow think that human actions are not Natural, even though humans, like beavers, are products of Nature. Beaver dams are Natural but human dams aren't? MORE idiotic stupidity. A human shooing a fly is as Natural as a horse swishing its tail for the same purpose. A farmer butchering a hog is as Natural as a pod of killer whales feasting on a blue. Therefore your statement, "deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable" IS PURE PREJUDICE. Not to mention you are saying that if a terrorist shoots at you, you are not allowed to shoot back. Terrorists are those who, to paraphrase an idiom, "live by the gun", and hence are Traditionally allowed to "die by the gun". WHOSE gun shouldn't matter. The problem with your statement is that it is UNSUPPORTED AND NOT PRECISE. What you SHOULD have written is something like, "persons should generally not kill other persons, because they are thereby generally inviting their own deaths (although exceptions do happen)". In this way we can hope to avert an interstellar war with nonhumans who we might happen to think look ugly (and who probably in turn would think we look ugly). Persons can UNDERSTAND things like The Golden Rule. Unborn humans, however, understand absolutely nothing. That is why they are not persons and that is why they need not be included in guidelines for persons.

BAD LOGIC. Humans are PART of Nature, which is why Natural Mindless Biology is associated with human bodies. So, if humans are part of Nature and beavers are part of Nature, why is a beaver dam called "natural" while a human dam isn't? It is LOGICAL that since humans are part of Nature, ALL human actions are "Natural"!!! **HOWEVER** one reason to make a distinction is due to Free Will. **IT**IS**NOT** part of Natural Mindless Biology. We acquire it through Quantum Physics and the Uncertainty Principle, while Natural Mindless Biology is pretty much just a cause-and-effect system. Free Will wouldn't BE what it is, if only cause-and-effect ruled. THEREFORE, we DON'T have to pay attention to what Nature has to say about Right-to-Life, and so we DO make a political claim about it. ALSO, we can and do use that same Free Will to specify which organisms do and do not need to have our political Right-to-Life extended to them. Unborn humans can be exempted BECAUSE we have Free Will, and they don't, EXACTLY like most ordinary animals are exempted for the same reason. SIMPLE LOGIC.

As you can plainly see, none of that claims God is responsible for anything. I am quite consistent, therefore, in saying, in essence, "to claim that God is responsible, is to make just another unsupported claim".

 

[Jerry]

I have examined the specified postings (from about 6 months ago), and extracted what seems to be the relevant parts below:
As you can plainly see, none of that claims God is responsible for anything. I am quite consistent, therefore, in saying, in essence, "to claim that God is responsible, is to make just another unsupported claim".

I wasn't contesting your God concept.

I was contesting the existence of a 'right to die'.

My remarks to talloulou were under the premise that 1. there is a God, and 2. God made everything. If you disagree with those premises, fine, but please do not digress and degrade the exchange between her and I by contesting those premises and expecting cooperation. They are subjects who need their own thread(s), and even if we used the remaining 61 pages in this thread I doubt that any ground would be gained by anyone.

Sorry to reference your ability to illustrate nature. I didn't mean to offend.

***
So tecoyah, hows abouts I try a second time.....

God made those just as he made the Beaver’s dam and the Eagle’s nest.

God Made Guns?

Freakin' No Way.....

They are all the products of "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

A "right to die" is not.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I was contesting the existence of a 'right to die'.

You haven't been doing a very good job of it. Where is your response to this?

Dare you imply that there is a requirement to force some organism to stay alive? {{and}} So, to clarify the preceding, if a right-to-life exists, then so also does exist a right-to-death. If a right-to-life does not exist, well, that is a simple acknowledgement of the perfectly Natural fact that death can happen already at any time from a large variety of possible causes, so suicide is included automatically as a possible cause. Simple.

Well?

My remarks to talloulou were under the premise that 1. there is a God, and 2. God made everything.

Yes, I was aware of those premises.

If you disagree with those premises, fine,

I am agnostic about the first, which is why I say that you shouldn't use that premise in a Debate unless you can support the claim. The second, however, is just plain irrational, and I have supported that claim:

Logically, in fact, if anyone dares claim that God is a prerequisite for something to exist, then that does not explain any claim of God's existence.

That is, the Nature of the Cosmic All is greater than God, not the other way around, because that Nature allowed God, if exists, to come into existence. Nor does any existence of God eliminate that Nature as a Source for other things to come into existence. So, simple logic shows us that God couldn't make everything, and your second premise is therefore indeed irrational/impossible.

... but please do not digress and degrade the exchange between her and I by contesting those premises and expecting cooperation.

It is not an error to point out an obvious error, especially when in a Debate the error is the basis of an argument. Your cooperation is not required for anything other than to acknowledge the existence of the error. If you disagree with the logic and data that expose the error, then you should be able to provide better logic and data. So far, you have not done any such thing in this case (and seldom have done it in other cases).

They are subjects who need their own thread(s), and even if we used the remaining 61 pages in this thread I doubt that any ground would be gained by anyone.

The don't need their own Threads. The assumption that they do depends on the notion that large amounts of information --logic-and-support-data-- must be exchanged, when in fact only small amounts of indisputable data are necessary. A major cause for a Thread to drag on is people who ignore counter-data and continue to make unsupported claims (including newly-joining Debaters who don't review the Thread). When do you plan to either (A) respond to Msg #322, or (B) stop claiming that Objective Value is required for a Debate Argument to be not-ignorable?

 

[ngdawg]

I wasn't contesting your God concept.

I was contesting the existence of a 'right to die'.

My remarks to talloulou were under the premise that 1. there is a God, and 2. God made everything. If you disagree with those premises, fine, but please do not digress and degrade the exchange between her and I by contesting those premises and expecting cooperation. They are subjects who need their own thread(s), and even if we used the remaining 61 pages in this thread I doubt that any ground would be gained by anyone.

Sorry to reference your ability to illustrate nature. I didn't mean to offend.

***
So tecoyah, hows abouts I try a second time.....

They are all the products of "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

A "right to die" is not.

A gun is not the product of the laws of nature....good grief...:roll: It's a resultant product of man's desire to kill faster and more efficiently.
And we do have a right to die of sorts-we can refuse medical intervention that would prolong our suffering. We can 'pull the plug'. What we don't have is the right to step in and override that first right without just and legal cause.

 

[Jerry]

Future,
You just don't get it, do you?
You do not debate in a linier fashion. You go in circles. You digress in your digressions. You bring up irrelevant and very, very long winded points. You have taken, in threads past, up to 3 posts just to respond to only one of mine, and I have seen you take up to 4 posts for one response with others.

I simply don't care to have to start boring myself to sleep trying to make out what you are trying to say in your a-typical novel-in-length responses. I don't have the time to read long posts and I don't have the time to respond to long posts (as you insist that every "point" you bring up, however irrelevant and convoluted, be addressed....only so that you can then make a conversation out of every point, bringing up more irrelevant points in the process and making conversations out of those......hence the long posts.....).

Believe it or not, I do have a life outside of DP. I have a job that demands my time. I have a family that demands my time. Also, come the 17th. I'll also have collage that will demand my time. I don't have time to take an houre just for your latist post, as they are when you get yourself going.

Even if I did, an online forum is not conductive of the information exchange rate that you are looking for. This text format does not have enough 'bandwidth', if you will.

***
I HAVE given you data showing the presence of a sentient living information system being represented in scripture. You simply disregarded it and digressed, again, into your own ramblings.

When do you plan to either (A) respond to Msg #322, or (B) stop claiming that Objective Value is required for a Debate Argument to be not-ignorable?

I don't.
Axioms are self proving, "self evident" truths. Objective Value is axiomatic. If you lack the ability to see Objective Values now, then there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

There is only one being which has true objectivity: God; and God has both written into the common moral core of every healthy human as well as given written documentation of His value of life. His Objective Valuation of life.

You are not the first person that I have agreed to disagree with. You won't be the last either.

 

[Jerry]

A gun is not the product of the laws of nature....good grief...:roll: It's a resultant product of man's desire to kill faster and more efficiently.
And we do have a right to die of sorts-we can refuse medical intervention that would prolong our suffering. We can 'pull the plug'. What we don't have is the right to step in and override that first right without just and legal cause.

"[M]an's desire to kill faster and more efficiently" is the law of nature from which the gun comes.

It's the whole flesh -v- spirit conflict.
The fleshly desire of Man is to kill faster and more efficiently. The spiritual desire of Man is to live in peace and harm none.

 

[Jerry]

"[M]an's desire to kill faster and more efficiently" is the law of nature from which the gun comes.

It's the whole flesh -v- spirit conflict.
The fleshly desire of Man is to kill faster and more efficiently. The spiritual desire of Man is to live in peace and harm none.

I'm going to put myself in check on that.

A legal right to die would come from "man's desire to kill faster and more efficiently", which is our fleshly instinct. Such a legal right to die would be created by Man, not God; and according to our founding fathers, our unalienable rights are conferred to us by our Creator, not our selves, which negates the very idea that dieing is a "right".

So if such a legal right to die is created it will come from the part of us which wars over religion, not the part of us which feeds starving children.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Axioms are self proving, "self evident" truths.

That is the definition, yes. But just because somebody claims something is an axiom, that is not enough, by itself, for it to actually be an axiom. Look up the history of Euclid's ten axioms of geometry sometime. All went unquestioned for more than a millenium and a half, and then all were questioned, and one was found wanting. Likewise have I questioned your claimed "axiom" and found it wanting.

Objective Value is axiomatic.

That is your claim. Going against that claim is the well-recognized fact that minds assign valuations, and different minds assign different values --including zero-- to different things. Why is it not obvious to you that if some particular thing really had Objective value, then every mind that encountered it would value it greater-than-zero, even if not identically? Yet there is not anything which has that characteristic! Atheists assign zero value to the notion of God, for example. Suicides assign zero value to their own lives, for another example. Why is it not obvious to you that if your claim is correct, then there would be obvious holes in both of the possible proofs I've previously offered (toward the end of http://www.debatepolitics.com/328906-post39.html ) --and yet you have not even tried to point out any holes?

If you lack the ability to see Objective Values now, ...

I don't necessarily lack an ability to see Objective Value. First it has to exist to be see-able! An ordinary human raised in an environment totally lacking in the color red will still have the ability to see that color, should it eventually be encountered. Your mere claim that Objective Value exists is, in a Debate, something "positive" that can require substantiation. Your feeble attempt to avoid offering substantiation, even by failing to point out any holes in the possible proofs I offered, does you no credit at all.

... then there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

You are exhibiting all the traits of someone who has chosen to believe nonsense instead of sense. Why do I want to change my mind, currently believing the sensible, into believing the nonsensical?

 

[Jerry]

Future,
Coast to Coast am is having a free weekend this weekend. I thought that you might find the following shows of interest:

Sunday July 23rd, 2006
Consciousness & Quantum Entanglement

Art Bell welcomed Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, who offered analysis of the Global Consciousness Project and discussed his new book Entangled Minds. The Project measures the movement or "ocean" of consciousness through changes in random number generators that are set up around the world, he explained. Eight years of data looking at 204 major world events has shown that a kind of "coherence" takes place associated with these incidents, in which the numbers become less random. The overall odds against chance of this occurring are roughly 300,000 to 1, Radin reported. Further, these types of results were mainly associated with populated areas, indicating that consciousness was the variable in the changes.

Wednesday July 19th, 2006
The Holy Grail & Reincarnated Gods

Author Maurice Cotterell shared his knowledge of ancient encoded secrets and the Holy Grail. He also traced how Sun-worshipping civilizations such as the Mayas of Mexico and the Viracochas of South America experienced reincarnations of the "son of God."

Wednesday July 12th, 2006
Science & Spirituality

Astrophysicist Dr. Bernard Haisch presented his views which offer a bridge between science and spirituality. Arguing that the universe was brought about by an "infinite intelligence," he believes this intelligence's purpose is to experience and enrich itself through its various aspects and life forms. Further, we are not disconnected from this intelligence, but a part of it, he said.

Tuesday June 20th, 2006
Chemicals: Dangers & Deceptions

Investigative reporter Randall Fitzgerald believes that the interaction of synthetic chemicals is wreaking havoc on human health and weakening people's immune systems. "We're all guinea pigs" in a vast chemical experiment, he said, arguing that western medicine is based on a synthetic paradigm in which ailments are treated by non-natural drugs that cause side effects, which in turn need to be remedied by more medications.

Thursday June 15th, 2006
Cosmology, Physics & Science

Writer for Science Magazine, Charles Seife, probed the mind-boggling advances that are taking us to a new understanding of the universe. There's been a scientific revolution in cosmology in the last decade, he said, with the realization that 96% of the universe is not made up of atomic structure, but rather is composed of dark energy and dark matter-- which we know very little about. Yet, he uses the concept of "information theory" --the idea that every particle in the cosmos contains information-- to connect such disparate fields as quantum mechanics and relativity.

Thursday May 25th, 2006
Exorcising Demons

Bob Larson, an expert on cults and supernatural phenomena, returned for a discussion about exorcisms and demonic possession. He said he's been performing exorcisms for thirty years and has worked on thousands of cases, many of which are performed at public seminars. Additionally, he noted that there are more than 100 teams around the country that are trained to conduct such exorcisms. As Protestants, they don't require signs of the supernatural or permission from a church authority, as is done in the Catholic faith, he added.

***Very creepy!
And if you like that, you'll love 'God's not in here!" (top right of page, click on "Entity Recording")


Saturday May 20th, 2006
Evolutionary Event Horizon

Filling in for Art Bell, Ian Punnett welcomed 'Historian of the Future' Charles Ostman, who revealed that mankind is approaching a transitional threshold, an Evolutionary Event Horizon, that will require us to either raise our spiritual maturity or face self-destruction.

Tuesday May 9th, 2006
Testing Remote Viewing

Statistics Professor Jessica Utts shared the results of her statistical studies in remote viewing and parapsychology. Serving as a statistician for the Remote Viewing research program at SRI, and later as consultant for a government evaluation of the program, she concluded that "psychic functioning has been well established." Her findings showed that when chance would dictate a 25% accuracy rating, subjects delivered a 33% rating, which is considered statistically significant.

Thursday May 4th, 2006
Consciousness & Psychic Phenomena

Scientist and author Dr. Dean Radin discussed his scientific research into consciousness and psychic phenomena. He reported on the testing of random number generators (called "eggs") which show statistical anomalies where the numbers behave in a less random fashion in relation to certain events.

***
I've just downloaded and am about to listen to:

Thursday August 3rd, 2006
Ancient Human Origins

Author and researcher Michael Cremo discussed the evidence for "extreme human antiquity." Texts in ancient Sanskrit described previous civilizations that had high technology and he said he's found similar material across a number of ancient cultures. Cremo suggested a number of civilizations, far predating ones from the last 10,000 years, have come and gone, wiped out by various earth changes. According to different wisdom traditions, humanity goes through cycles such as Bronze and Iron Ages or what is called yugas by the Hindu.

***
Also, I have referenced Stan Tenen to you in the past. If you would care to here him debate against intelligent design proponents you can listen to "Opening Remarks", "Evolution & Panspermia" and "Geometry & Design Models" here:

Tuesday November 8th, 2005
Intelligent Design Debate

Richard C. Hoagland is the founder of Enterprise Mission, a research group that investigates the scientific possibility of ET artifacts across the solar system. The Kansas School Board has taken a brave position, he said, in their declaration that the Darwinian system isn't the only view. Hoagland finds this hopeful since it may open up schools to presenting alternative evolutionary theories, such as the idea he espouses-- directed panspermia, which posits that life was spread throughout the galaxy by an intelligent species.

Mike Heiser (michaelsheiser.com) received a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and ancient Semitic Languages. He now works for Logos Bible Software, a company that specializes in analyzing ancient texts. A theist, he is not persuaded by the idea that life developed out of a vacuum, and still sees a need for some kind of intelligent causation.

Stan Tenen has a B.S. in Physics from Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and is the Director of Research for the Meru Foundation. He argued that the intelligent design claim is outside of the realm of science and therefore a belief system. Rather than subscribing to this particular ideation, he suggested that life is universal and that the geometry of space-time contributes to evolution. For more of Tenen's discourse, view this page he created in tandem for the show.

Enjoy!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Coast to Coast am is having a free weekend this weekend. I thought that you might find the following shows of interest:

I've been doing some vacationing, and didn't see your post until after the weekend had passed. Most of what you wrote about I have heard about before, however.

Regarding " Consciousness & Quantum Entanglement", as well as "Consciousness & Psychic Phenomena", I learned about some of that literally decades ago. It is interesting evidence for the idea that some aspect of a human being is not explainable in terms of Standard Physics. This in turn logically leaves open the possibility that souls exist, and therefore also the possibility that God exists. However, none of that data is evidence for any notions such as (A) God created the Universe, (B) God ever made any of the various pronouncements attributed to God in the Bible, including such things as "be fruitful and multiply", or homosexuality-is-a-sin, or abortion-is-wrong, etc. Those pronouncements are all still most-easily explainable in terms of greedy preachers wanting more and more wealth and social power.

Regarding "The Holy Grail & Reincarnated Gods", I also first learned about some of that decades ago. But things attributed to Jesus are not automatically the same as things attributed to God, since there is no real evidence that God actually incarnated as Jesus --especially when Jesus supposedly told his disciples that everything he had done they could do, too, and more.

Regarding "Science & Spirituality" and "Intelligent Design Debate", efforts have been made to resolve aspects of this since Isaac Newton, at least. There is a fundamental problem with claiming that intelligence such as humans possess requires a Creator, because that Creator obviously must have intelligence, too. How was it "created"? An infinitely regressing series of Creators is a ludicrous concept. Nor does it make sense to say that intelligence "always existed". The concept of "change" makes it impossible; not only is "change" built into the notion that an intelligence can think different things and Act, there is also the notion that if "there isn't anything that lasts forever" is true, then "there isn't anything that has lasted forever" must also be true. Evolution of intelligence, however, even if of a Creator, is not ludicrous at all, and embraces Change. Of course, that also means that our own intelligence could have evolved without a Creator, doesn't it?

Regarding "Chemicals: Dangers & Deceptions", I've also been aware of that for most of my life. As a result I'm a nonsmoker, a teetotaler, and a general nonuser of drugs. I sometimes go for years without taking so much as an aspirin. Yes, I know that other chemicals are not so easily avoided. It is still a fact that most Americans are living longer healthier lives than their ancestors, in spite of the background level of chemicals. Also, there is some evidence that many immune-system problems (allergies, mostly) are related to young children being insufficiently exposed to ordinary dirt early in life. The immune system needs to be primed, to recognize the things it is supposed to attack....

Regarding "Cosmology, Physics & Science", I've been up-to-date on such things all along. For starters, I could show you a collection of "Scientific American" going back almost 30 years.

Regarding "Exorcising Demons", that sounds a lot like witch-doctoring. Yes, that's just a first impression. But consider some logic. If "spirit" is what cheerleaders are supposed to exhibit, then what exactly is an "evil spirit"? Melancholy? The terminology of exorcism seems to lack significant scientific precision! The exorcists might be doing some good (power of positive thinking and all that), but I'm not sure (A) they know what they are talking about, and (B) they aren't equivalent to snake-oil salesmen. If you are in the business of identifying people that you can supposedly help, then what is to stop you from identifying everyone as those you can supposedly help?

Regarding "Evolutionary Event Horizon", science-fiction writers have for more than a decade been referring to something similar, but from a technological perspective, that they call "the singularity". As an example, consider the famous question first asked by Enrico Fermi, about other intelligent life in the universe: "Where are they?" See, it is easily shown that an advanced civilization can spread across the stars at 1/10 of light-speed, and can fill the Galaxy in lots less time than the time-scales associated with geophysics or Evolution. So, any other civilization in this Galaxy, older than Earth's, should be here already. With plentitudes of evidence (such as the gaping scars in the landscape that our mining technology leaves behind). Well, if they aren't here, and haven't been here, then either they don't exist (not very reasonable), or we are the oldest, wisest race in the Galaxy (sobering thought!), or their technological civilizations self-destructed at some point (all too possible). "The singularity" represents a technological situation in which an average person could wield truly enormous power. Already, compared to distant ancestors, average persons wield vastly more power than they did. The trend is continuing, exponentially. Well, an "average person" today might be somebody with a finger on the nuclear trigger --some could argue that our current President is rather-less-than-average. Not too many years from now, an average person could use recombitant-DNA techniques to craft a plague. And so on. Technology gives us power, but doesn't tell us how to use it wisely (and how to keep that power out of the hands of the irrational). Obviously I've just been discussing stuff that that "Evolutionary Event Horizon" thing is related to; if we don't change our ways, we could well be the next species that doesn't spread across the Galaxy.

Regarding "Testing Remote Viewing", that's one of those things the CIA investigated (and became public) quite a while ago. See what I wrote above about "Consciousness and Quantum Entanglement".

Regarding "Ancient Human Origins", that's more stuff I first encountered decades ago. One tale is that there is a place in a desert where an archaeologisit found layers of older and older structures, and the bottom layer was "trinitite" (glass made from sand exposed to an atomic blast). None of that has anything to do with God, though.