God, being eternal, is obviously not a test subject to observe. You then ask, "Then what evidence do you have of God even existing?" Naturally, we know that evolution itself has no explanation as to the origin of organic life manifesting from non-organic material (even Britton stated to me, "The study of abiogenesis has no explanation as to how yet."). Evolution also has no explanation as to the origin of why nature would ever need to breed intelligence in only one species, and how (no matter how much time) evolution breeds species to evolve into a new form of species without as many as having even 1,000 of transitional fossils per species . Then I assume, "God possibly?" since we know that life on Earth needed a cause, and God has no cause because, by definition, He is eternal. Then you may ask, "What justifies this fact?" and I'll respond by saying, "The Bible," and then you would arrogantly respond by saying, "What makes the Bible authentic and not a book just written by man?" to which I would respond, "It's content." to which you would say, "Well that's stupid. You can't source yourself." and then I'll explain by saying, "The Bible itself states that it was written by men endowed by the Holy Spirit of God. If anything was written by man and man alone, would there not be a perfidious motive for man? The Bible promotes God and only God, and it states that there is no other God except Him. "The Book of Moroni teaches polygamy is legal, God was once a man like us, works promote our salvation, and we will eventually be a god of our own planet and have an infinite amount of sex with our loved one(s), like God did when He had Jesus Christ. This is a highly damnable fallacy. The Catholic Church promoted the Apocrypha about 30 years after Martin Luther debunked it with the Ninety-five Thesis explaining their fallacy since the Catholic Church promoted salvation by works, the forgiveness of sins by priests, the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood, the deistic homage toward Mary, the holiness of the Pope, and more. This is a highly damnable fallacy, and how one can determine a faith to be not legit is to find whether it possesses a perfidious motive which would usually be through monetary or physical gain (The Catholic Church) or psychological self-appeasement to one's state in their version of the acclaimed after-life (The Doctrine of Mormonism). "The Bible alone, without all that additive crap, which was added to change the canon, is the [b]only[/b] text in the world that does not call one to a state of self-fulfillment, but to a state of self-denial; and so, it could not have been written by man since it didn't have the intent in the first place to appease men, but instead, it promotes throughout the entire text an individual who you believe to be our Flying Spaghetti Monster, God. If it was written by man alone, it would have at least provided some gain to an individual on Earth (e.g., The Pope or The Catholic Church) or a well-appeasing infinite carnality desire (e.g., spiritual sex or earthly polygamy in Mormonism). "To summarize, evolution has no origin so God must exist in order for life to begin to have complexity, intelligence, and organic life. [spoiler]Note: Darwin doubted the origin of complexity even in his studies written in chapter 6 of [i]On the Origin of Species[/i][/spoiler]Everything has a cause but God doesn't since He's eternal. The Bible is true because it was evidently not written by man with the intent of appeasing men, and it promotes only God and exhibits every human, even the prophets as flawed creatures that were justified for eternal damnation."

I'm just gonna pretend I understood that rambling. I wasn't trying to start an argument, I was just pointing out a flaw in your logic

He copy and pastes that so he can avoid the fact he contradicted himself and shouldn't believe in God.

And he keeps on going on and on about micro evolution, without seeming to realise that lots and lots of small changes in a species over many hundreds of thousands of years cause the species to change, i.e. evolve. This concept of species gradually growing specially adapted body parts completely baffles him, so of course the logical answer is a "god" just pointed at the organism and said "you will have wings" and *poof* the animal magically has wings. Anyway, it's impossible to argue with people who strongly believe in something. The more you try to disprove them or convert them to your way of thinking, the stronger their faith/loyalty to that belief becomes. Simple example: he's trying to convince us god is real, and we refuse to accept to his argument. I don't have anything against religious people, it's just when they try to prove their belief with "facts" that they become annoying.