Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Christianity has ALWAYS had more evidence of it's truth and credibility than Zeus, Hinduism, Mithras or whatever and it has become a major religion precisely because it had fully empirical and rational reasons.

No. It became a major religion because it was the tool of kings and tyrants to unite a divided populace - and anyone holding the old views were killed and slaughtered. Oh, keep reading - Christianity isn't the only religion with Martyrs.

It's precisely because of the EVIDENCE that it became so widespread so fast in its early years when it was being persecuted (there were other factors too later on, some positive and some wrong). NOBODY AT ALL would have followed it and risked their lives if it wasn't STRONGLY based on evidence.

The Norse died for what they believed in - until the death. So did the Celts. The Jews. The Arabian Paganistic faiths. The Shaman tribes of Africa. Those who held to their Roman heritage. Those who held to greek heritage.
All of them died mercilessly at the hands of Christians for a belief that COULDN'T POSSIBLY be wrong, because they believed it up until their brutal murders and subsequent whipe-out of entire civilizations.
Ad populum fallacy.

Christianity isn't special because a shit-ton of people believe it. More people have died for their beliefs at the hands of Christianity than any other religious movement throughout history. Cultures upon cultures.
You cite history, but you clearly don't even know enough about Christian history to even remember that little fact right there. No matter what you write it off as more people have died at the hands of the Christian movement than any other single movement in the history of the world. Period.
Or do you want me to get out a Kill count going?

It was based on evidence such as what Bertrand Russell calls "evidence against interest" one of the most credible types of evidence that exists, esp. in history. We have many great thinkers such as Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and so many others writing thoroughly reason based arguments for Christianity, but we have much better and more evidence now.

Are you actually going to PRESENT this evidence and meet my contest of evidence versus my Gods, or are you going to dance and play this game all day? Grant me any set of evidence that I cannot use for my gods' existences.

3 Posts left.

And, no, you're not being a martyr. You're being an idiot.

Even in the middle ages, we have Pascal writing the mammoth 700 page Penses filled with quite a lot of evidence, very impressive for his time and nothing compares to that from other religions or atheists t in the world at that time that I'm aware of and he wasn't the only one writing things like that. Have you even read any of it? Most atheists don't even comprehend what Pascal's Wager was accurately let alone the whole Pensees. His Pensees and wager were explicitly arguments based on evidence and I can give you quote after quote after quote documenting that.

1) Pascal's wager only assumes 2 possible choices, not the other over9000 gods and goddesses out there. Of course, Pascal wouldn't have included those - he was raised in a time frame where people were executed for atheism and being witches, also where you died of plague every other week.

2)The stone writings all over Germany predate all events in the Bible and tell of the norse pantheon quire precisely, even into how their culture worked and how they worshipped their gods.
Once again Norse Culture was based around the idea of dying for one's beliefs was the ultimate ending - your first and only point in this paragraph is invalidated by your utter ignorance of basic facts about other religions AND your own.

Btw, I live near a Buddhist temple in Korea which has sculptures of hell where evil people are being tortured (see my post above on why the Bible doesn't teach an eternal hell at all). Certain types of it might be closer to atheism, but it depends which of the 17+ types of atheism you advocate and which version of Buddhism you advocate.

[/quote]
That's Hindu Buddhism -
The original, non-stripped version of Buddhism is Atheistic in nature - your distance to a Buddhist temple doesn't mean that you know shit about how it works.
Atheism isn't a religion as much as Theism is a Religion. Quit diddling with words, here. Atheism is a descriptor.
If you believe in supernatural higher powers, you are one of the MILLIONS of Theisms with MILLIONS of subsets out there (Christianity having itself 1665 or so denominations with different doctrine out there as well). If you don't, you're an atheist and are part of one of the few atheistic sets out there like Shamanism, or fuck even Agnostic Atheism where you're not sure about the rest, but you're sure that there's no higher authority about it.

All off branches of Atheism and Theism are "World Views" - you and I have different Theistic worldviews, and everyone here has different atheistic worldviews... But Atheism is not a world view. It's actually the null in the hypothesis here, if it is based upon logical reasoning.

---------------------------------

3 More posts, dotree, to give me the evidence that cannot also work for my Gods.

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

My definition of evolution is concise and accurate. Any person denying it, creationist or not, can rightly be called an idiot since evolution is just a name given to a process. I'll define it again here for clarity

Biological Evolution: Descent with inherent modification in a reproducing population

What those creationists don't accept is that evolutionary processes have led to the diversity of life on earth. Did you really fail to grasp that distinction?

I'd contend that you can't even define evidence in a sentence. Why don't you just do that for me, then present a single piece of it. Still waiting for something, anything.

Let me guess, not enough time, too much to do...

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

[...] I could instantly post books upon books"¦but, want to try to make it as short, but as thorough as possible with the best evidences [sic] [...]

The evidence that you can write anything short and thorough is, like the rest of your supposed evidence, unsurprisingly absent.

By the way, the plural of evidence is... evidence - some English teacher you are. I'd point out literally dozens of examples of your extraordinarily poor written English (for someone who claims to educate on the matter) if I could be arsed to go through it all again; actually, I'd say it's more likely that you use your position as a native English speaker in Korea as a front for your proselytising.
Which brings me to the point I want to make (that you seem to consistently ignore whenever it's made):

Do yourself a favour and present the evidence in the debate thread. Stop fucking about picking up arguments you have no hope of winning (RE: AronRa - your semantic treatments don't fool anyone here) in unimportant threads. You want to convince the nasty atheists here that they're the most evil presence on Earth and that Christianity has favourable evidence in abundance... Probably in the hope of a convert or two.
You came here (again) to have a debate; go and fucking do it!

You said you have "your people" watching... Aren't you just embarrassing yourself further? Claiming you have no time, yet have written nearly 20,000 words in a couple of days (mostly in one sentence), saying you will present evidence then don't actually do so, make grandiose claims about the things atheists believe with no supporting evidence in action, nor lexicographically... The list of utter failures on your part continue to mount.

Put as simply as possible, get to the fucking point or concede that you're full of shit.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Squawk,
Creationists such as John Wilkins, founder of the 1st scientific society in history, Edward Blyth, Alfred Wallace and other creationists LONG before Darwin were writing and publishing on your "definition" of evolution and I have not met even ONE creationist who does not believe that evolution according to your definition happens. This is part of the common tactic of atheists trying to conflate terms and abscond with what creationists were doing LONG before. Here's Blyth for example:
"An Attempt to Classify the 'Varieties' of Animals with Observations on the Marked Seasonal and Other Changes Which Naturally Take Place in Various British Species, and Which Do Not Constitute Varieties
by Edward Blyth (The Magazine of Natural History Vol. 8, No. 1. January, 1835. pp.40-53.)
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/blyth1.html (this is only his first paper"¦there are at least 2 others he wrote on this topic as well).

Here's a definition of evolution that I think Inferno posted before that is FAR more accurate that DOES include what is the ACTUAL point of contention between neo-darwinists and creationists, whether descent with modification is limited or unlimited. Yet, creationists don't disagree with hardly any of it (and actually pioneered quite a bit of it), except step 12 which IS the only real point of contention between neo-darwinists and creationists, something that is swept under the rug by definitions such as yours which define evolution in terms that nobody disagrees with and then does a bait and switch and pretends that this proves that this is proof for universal common descent, an entirely different concept.

Now if you can have the knowledge or integrity to be able to define creation science in comparably accurate ways, I'll be flabbergasted and you'll be only the 2nd out of 1000+ atheists/evolutionists that I've challenged to do so and I'll laud you with commendations and accolades and hold your name in high esteem and in the future cite you as the 2nd atheism/evolutionist to be able to have the integrity and rational objectivity to actually know how to define a rival view accurately. Same deal if you can do that for Christianity.

DEFINITION OF UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT:
VARIATION:
1. Variation exists in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable.
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via "crossing over" during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replicating process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
SELECTION:
6. Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
7. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
8. "Sampling errors" can occur in populations that alter the relative frequency of the various alleles for reasons other than survival/reproductive advantages.
9. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the "recipient" population.
SPECIATION:
10. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can "favor" different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
11. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as period of geographic isolation) when a sub-population acquires characteristics which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternate population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.

SUFFICIENCY:
12. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms; over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.

Evidence in a single sentence? yeah..pretty difficult, but here's a humongous effort to get it down to 1 sentence . I'd say that whatever has observations, confirmations or witnesses or artifacts using the scientific method (observational, inferential, historical, explanatory), historical method, methods used in legal courts, logical evidence, and evidence of supernatural activity such as prophecies that Christians/Jews couldn't cause to come true, miracles, very advanced foreknowledge, etc. count as evidence.

I've told you MULTIPLE times places to start in terms of evidence. Here are 3:
1) Dr. Craig vs. Hitchens debate (more in the philosophical area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

2) Evidence for the global flood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Dr. Silvestru's presentation, Geology and Deep Time)
start around minute 36 or so. From around minute 54 he shows how plate tectonics has quite a bit of evidence that integrates very well with the biblical flood.

3) I strongly recommend the book "The Greatest Hoax of All" where Dr. Sarfati shatters the claims of Dawkin's book and shows with countless citations how universal common descent has been refuted in many areas and creation science vindicated.

That's all I'll give you for now. What counts as evidence and the accurate definitions must come before I give out any of the many other types of evidence I have.
Bryan

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

LONG before Darwin were writing and publishing on your "definition" of evolution

Is Darwin now a collective noun?

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Sorry Hytegia,
I don't have time now to deal with anything but atheism and evolution. Maybe later if you are actually a pagan and not just trolling. You are dead wrong on many things. Christianity became widespread all over the middleast and Europe long before it gained power (and yes, it did some bad things after that, but mostly in disobedience to the Bible and mostly a power that the Bible predicted would persecute the genuine believers as it did..and most who it killed were those who wanted to follow the Bible and read it in their own language, etc.).

You're also wrong on Pascal. He dealt directly with other religions in his Pensees.

And as far as Christianity killing the most, not even remotely close. I don't like to talk about the killing count much since it just makes people defensive and there have been abuses and atrocities on all sides. But, since you brought it up, n the 22 states where atheism was the official view of the state, persecution and oppression was rampant, there was no respect for free thought whatsoever and 1-200 million were murdered for just having different views from the state, usually on religious issues as a direct result of atheist claims that religion was dangerous and a hindrance to progress, science, etc. and many false statements like that. According to research from the University of Hawaii, the number of people killed by atheists in power is ~30 times in 1 century more than that killed by all religions, including false religions in all history. This is not cherry picking. In nearly EVERY case where atheism was the official view of the state, there was criminal disrespect of the worst order for human rights. This does NOT lessen the guilt of Christians who committed crimes one particle. But, if you're going to pick out the worst aspects of one view, you in all fairness should do the same for other views. See these sites
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
A good summary of the above is here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html
See also: http://creation.com/christian-vs-evolutionary-atrocities

And if you know anything about the null hypothesis, it isn't a view that's considered true or proven even if nothing falsifies it. Science doesn't have ANY defaults of any kind that it assumes are true. PERIOD. Even one piece of evidence falsifies the NH. Christianity had evidence that falsified the null hypothesis from the very start.

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond to much on paganism. I'm dealing with atheism and universal common descent now. But, if you want an intro to why Christianity has more evidence than other religions, start here where A former Hindu and later atheist shows why Christianity has better evidences and reasons to believe it than atheism, other major worldviews, other religions and other philosophies. Quite balanced and respectful investigation of the evidence:

Come Search With Me
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/ADA90FCF20A839A1 (Start on Video 1 ~8:35)

These are just intros/surveys...but good.
Bryan

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I'd say that whatever has observations, confirmations or witnesses or artifacts using the scientific method (observational, inferential, historical, explanatory), historical method, methods used in legal courts, logical evidence, evidence from prophecy, miracles, very advanced foreknowledge, etc. count as evidence.

This self-referencing word salad counts as a definition? What kind of language educator are you? Your sentence doesn't address evidence, it addresses postulates for which you think there is evidential support.

Let me have a go

Evidence: An observation or inference influencing the likelihood of a given postulate being true.

That's a definition of evidence that is concise, easy to understand, and took me about 15 seconds to come up with. Not exactly hard. You'll recall my definition of belief earlier. That which I hold to be true. You'll also no doubt recall my definition of faith: belief for which the evidence in support is insufficient to provide justification.

So, having established what evidence is, we could choose to discuss types of evidence. We could look at methodologies of evidence gathering and assessment, methods that seek to remove bias, and we could discuss which of these types of evidence relegate a belief to faith, and which justify the belief.

But for now, and to keep this concise, why don't you do a comparison of our two definitions of evidence, see which works. Once accepted, we can move on.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

LONG before Darwin were writing and publishing on your "definition" of evolution

Is Darwin now a collective noun?

ROFL. Good one . I am running off to a class now and so made a typo. Good catch. That is what most of my edits are, correcting typos that I wrote in a hurry since I have a class or so many people to try to answer who have questions.
Bryan

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Now if you can have the knowledge or integrity to be able to define creation science in comparably accurate ways, I'll be flabbergasted and you'll be only the 2nd out of 1000+ atheists/evolutionists that I've challenged to do so and I'll laud you with commendations and accolades and hold your name in high esteem and in the future cite you as the 2nd atheism/evolutionist to be able to have the integrity and rational objectivity to actually know how to define a rival view accurately. Same deal if you can do that for Christianity.

There is really not much to it Bryan. In my opinion

"Creation science" - GOD DID IT

is the most accurate definition that one can give compared to the short but very meaningful definition that Squawk presented.
Oh and of course you are free to think about it whatever you want.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Are we doing this again? Really? Didn't we learn our lesson last time Dotoree decided he could provide evidence for anything?

For future reference; 48 pages of Dotoree providing nothing and whining about his personal life, which is inevitably where this is going to end: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=88430#p88430

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Well at least we sorta have an attempt at a definition for evidence, even if it was all over the place. If mine is accepted (and I'd welcome critique from all sides, though I don't think it's in error), maybe we can actually get to evidence presentation. We can live in hope.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Maybe it's the abscess that is currently gnawing it's way through my jaw bone but I'm all out of tolerance for the kind logical abyss that has ensued in the 'debate' thread and his previous posts here. His "if I'm banned then it's because of teh conspiracy against Jebus" bullshit was the the cherry on a cake that went bad months ago.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Sorry Hytegia,
I don't have time now to deal with anything but atheism and evolution. Maybe later if you are actually a pagan and not just trolling. You are dead wrong on many things. Christianity became widespread all over the middleast and Europe long before it gained power (and yes, it did some bad things after that, but mostly in disobedience to the Bible and mostly a power that the Bible predicted would persecute the genuine believers as it did..and most who it killed were those who wanted to follow the Bible and read it in their own language, etc.).

No.
Various different types of Christianity were practiced throughout the upper-middle-east and in the Roman empire. From here, it gained footing as a religion under the Holy Roman Emperor Constantine, whom assembled the Bible with the help of Nobles in the Council of Nicaea. Nobles were made Holy Men, and all others whom held any dfferent doctrine than what was placed were now Pagans, and they were all assimilated or killed in the name of Jesus Christ.
This is basic history. Like, 8th grade history - not even college classes.

And, no, I am a Pagan. Tried and true to the bone. You cannot say anything to them that can not only be said about my gods and goddesses. And you still haven't, not even in this post.

2 More posts, Dotree.

You're also wrong on Pascal. He dealt directly with other religions in his Pensees.

No - Pascal's Wager is based upon the premise of only two possible options, is what I implied. Pascal's Wager basically says: "If you have the choice between living a good life, then dying and nothing happening or living a good life and going to heaven for all of eternity, which would you choose?"
It begs the question of the existence of OTHER afterlifes - such as Summerland.
And also, what of the only reason someone should believe in Yahweh is for selfish motives, thinking only in the interest of your possible afterlife? Really?
We're to believe in Yahweh simply because we want to go to heaven? And, well, the obvious alternative is Hell, so why NOT believe in God?
:roll:

And if you know anything about the null hypothesis, it isn't a view that's considered true or proven even if nothing falsifies it. Science doesn't have ANY defaults of any kind that it assumes are true. PERIOD. Even one piece of evidence falsifies the NH. Christianity had evidence that falsified the null hypothesis from the very start.

You're an idiot.
The Null Hypothesis is that all things are false until evidence is provided likewise. You, so far, have presented nothing but fluff and stuff, and no actual evidence in any of your posts. Cut the act, and either say what you have or just be honest and say that you don't have any.
The Null is that No Gods exist - Atheism. I believe in Pixies, but it is still not the Null.

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond to much on paganism. I'm dealing with atheism and universal common descent now. But, if you want an intro to why Christianity has more evidence than other religions, start here where A former Hindu and later atheist shows why Christianity has better evidences and reasons to believe it than atheism, other major worldviews, other religions and other philosophies. Quite balanced and respectful investigation of the evidence:

Come Search With Me
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/ADA90FCF20A839A1 (Start on Video 1 ~8:35)

These are just intros/surveys...but good.
Bryan

I've seen it - it's nothing but fluff and stuff, with no actual evidence. Ad populums, appeals to authority, and the same nonsense about Martyrs that you posited.
My Deity's names were carved into the mountainsides of Europe in Runes provided by Odin, whom hung himself from Yggdrasil and stabbed himself in the side with a spear in order to gain wisdom of words to grant unto the human race - many many years before Christianity popped up on the map.

Quit running, coward.

 

[nasher168]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I would very strongly recommend no one addresses any part of TruthisLife's next post and instead demand the evidence itself. No more bullshit. This has gone on for more than 170 posts now and we have heard precisely nothing in favour of Christianity. Just repeated attempts to dance around the issue by defining this or that.

By all means try to define evidence later. But for now... Put up or shut up.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Truthislife, for the sake of our collective sanity, and your own credibility, how about you just limit yourself to doing two things right now:

1) Provide one single piece of evidence for Christianity. It doesn't have to be your best piece of evidence, or your longest (please let it be so), it just has to be a piece of evidence. One. You can use Squawk's definition - which is not only a reasonable definition of evidence to any fair-minded person, but also happens to be correct - or whatever passes for evidence in your opinion, I don't care. So long as it is logically valid, you shouldn't have to worry.

2) While you're at it, make sure your evidence is something that cannot be used to support the Norse pantheon or - my personal favorite - Ohrmazd.

Do this and I shall bow and call you master, and worship whatever god you like.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

My definition of evolution is concise and accurate. Any person denying it, creationist or not, can rightly be called an idiot since evolution is just a name given to a process. I'll define it again here for clarity

Biological Evolution: Descent with inherent modification in a reproducing population

What those creationists don't accept is that evolutionary processes have led to the diversity of life on earth. Did you really fail to grasp that distinction?

I'd contend that you can't even define evidence in a sentence. Why don't you just do that for me, then present a single piece of it. Still waiting for something, anything.

Let me guess, not enough time, too much to do...

Well, clearly your last bit is the truth of it. Not enough time, too much to do for dotorlife to stop typing for 20 minutes and actually compose a single coherent thought.

It reminds me of high school, when a teacher would give a test that was all essay questions. Some students would start writing and wouldn't put down their pen for the entire hour, and then ask if they could come back and finish at lunch and/or after school. Just pages and pages and pages of writing. At the end they would have produced a small novel, and get a 'C' on the test. I'd finish the test in about 30 minutes and read for the rest of the class time, and usually only get 2-3 points deducted for spelling and an 'A' overall.

The difference is that I would read the question, think about the question, and then write only those words that served to answer the question. The novel-writers read the question, picked out a key word or two, and would spew everything that came into their head whether it had anything to do with the question or not. Writing a huge rambling essay doesn't indicate to a teacher that you have great knowledge of the subject, instead it indicates that you don't have a firm grasp of the topic and/or you didn't read and understand the question.

If you ask me why I'm an atheist and not a Christian, I can tell you in a couple of sentences:

My parents explained to me what fairy tales and fiction were when I was a kid, and without anyone claiming that the Bible was true it was clearly just another collection of fairy tales. There's no one coherent, consistent definition of any "god" that is agreed on by all or even most believers. There's no credible evidence to back up any of the foundational claims of Christianity; we have translations of copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of folk tales claiming that some other third party got some evidence thousands of years ago. Modern claims of evidence for Christianity consist of unconfirmed anecdotes, events with other less fantastic explanations, subjective feelings, semantic and pseudo-logical word games, and often lies and outright fraud.

Wow, 125 words total. No whining for 2500 words about how mean the last Christian I talked to was. I didn't need to include anything about how busy I am this week with unpacking in my new house. I didn't post a link to my latest blog entry where I discuss my lightning-fast Internet speed and the bottleneck at the wireless router. There's no attempt to redefine terms in order to make my case easier to justify. Nope. Just 125 words, and four sentences that can each be expanded into a longer discussion in a clear, concise, and coherent manner.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

How else do you afford that swanky phone and removal lackeys?

I'm just a gigolo...

The jig is up, sunshine, your cards are laid bare, your trousers are well and truly around your ankles. Busted!

If so, I'd have no choice but to have you killed. Your continued existence in the face of your insolence is EVIDENCE that I'm not a leader of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Here's the thing - I like Fluffing a paper more than anybody else. But if you're going to fluff something, it has to have some meat behind it.
Shit, TheYoungHistorian writes posts that would make dotree complain about length. The difference, however, is substance. It's the difference between hot air and actual down-to-earth facts that are the foundation for a writing.
I write a shit-ton too. But the key is that I actually have substance to my writing.

Dotree, you have no substance to your writing. You've done nothing but ramble and fluff with large paragroaphs, effectively attempting to drown us in so many useless "points" in the hopes that we can't actually address any of them. Since you claim to be taking English, I will present you with this:

Your next post shall be only a single piece of evidence. Any of it.
No fluff. No tangents. Just a simple essay with 3 pieces of evidence. The Opening paragraph should present the conclusion and evidences. The next 3 Paragraphs shall be supporting paragraphs detailing the first paragraph's evidences, one evidence per paragraph. The Final Paragraph is a Conclusion.

Simple - we're back in 3rd grade again!

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

You should know that he teaches at university level! He's gotta have evidence...

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Now if you can have the knowledge or integrity to be able to define creation science in comparably accurate ways, I'll be flabbergasted and you'll be only the 2nd out of 1000+ atheists/evolutionists that I've challenged to do so and I'll laud you with commendations and accolades and hold your name in high esteem and in the future cite you as the 2nd atheism/evolutionist to be able to have the integrity and rational objectivity to actually know how to define a rival view accurately. Same deal if you can do that for Christianity.

There is really not much to it Bryan. In my opinion

"Creation science" - GOD DID IT

Astronomical fail and straw man to boot.