Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

You mean -more- examples?

I'm still waiting for the one.  

All that's done is send us down an insufferable rat-hole of the Theists Usual Objections To Everything™. 

Insufferable?  I thought it was fun     Without me, who would you talk to?  If you're here for fun, then let's banter.  What's the problem?  Everyone acts like they want an echochamber until they realize: without differing opinions, there is nothing to talk about.  "Love your enemies!"

Have you ever considered the possibility that you're so fundamentally wrong about what you think evolutionary biology says or does that no opinion built off of those assumptions is informative?

Of course I could be wrong.  "There is a wonderful security in admitting you're wrong because, when you're wrong, you're sure to be right." - Alan Watts.  The only way to be right is to first be wrong.  If I can't be wrong, I can never be right... it's like a deadend... a blockage that prevents further progress.  Intelligence, therefore, is a function of one's propensity to admit error.

"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." - William Blake.

Alan used the example of the flat-earther.  He said you can't convince a flat-earther the earth is round because he KNOWS it's flat.  You have to make him persist in his folly... that is, you have to take him for a walk to have a look over the edge... and when he comes back to the place he started, he is convinced the earth is at least cylindrical lol.

The Backfire Effect happens when evidence is presented contrary to the beliefs of a person which causes the opposite of the intended effect.  In other words, the more evidence you produce, the more they dig in.  The way around that is to help them "persist in their folly" by asking them to explain their position more specifically until you get them to the point that they realize they don't know as much as they thought.

Everyone should be aware of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y

I'm not a bad guy.  If I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong and I suspect I'm the only one on the internet to have ever done so  

That when you make the statement "I have issues with x that make me lean gods", your "issues with x" are not issues, and don't have anything to do with gods? 

x = believing the conscious came from the unconscious.
The rest of your statement doesn't seem to follow because issues with x are legitimate issues and have something to do with a godlike thing (aka consciousness), but not in the way you're thinking about god (the bearded man in the sky barking orders - I don't believe that.)

You can't distinguish between a dam and a forest,

I can distinguish, but I see no distinction in the context we were discussing (intelligence).  A forest exists by some remarkable process that we don't fully understand and the beaver builds a dam by some remarkable process that we don't fully understand.  Both are awe inspiring.

and when a bee flaps it's wings you must be amazed to see that the flower stays on the ground.

 
Hence why the illusion that they're separate entities persists.  If we remove all flowers, the bee no longer flaps its wings.

You can't distinguish between that bee being drawn to specific nectar and the cloning method that we were discussing for apples and blueberries.

Distinguish is different from distinction.  For instance I can distinguish between honey and syrup, but there is no distinction from a dietary perspective since they're both sugar.

Why would your incompetence or incredulity in any of these regards (or any of the others you professed to be unable to grasp) be a problem for evolutionary theory..or an indicator of gods?

Surely you don't believe I'm too incompetent to understand evolution.

I am, however, seemingly ill-equipped to understand why you believe I don't understand evolution.  I've posted videos showcasing how evolutionary biology was harnessed in solving difficult problems.  I've even said (another thread) that I believe the fine-tuning argument is evidence for a type of evolution.  I'm not aware how I could have given you indication that I'm missing anything more than a nuance regarding evolutionary theory.  All I can think is because you conclude "no god" and I conclude "god" that therefore you conclude I know nothing of evolution simply because we've arrived at different destinations.

At the end of the day, you believe the conscious can evolve from the unconscious and I don't.  It's just a matter of preference at this point... like chocolate vs vanilla.  It doesn't mean either of us are stupid or bad people.

So let's get back to your telling me about the birds and the bees