Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Sir Hamilton]

What kind of evidence would you accept? [for God's existence]

Empirical, testable evidence, analyzed by trained scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Personal experience isn't enough (I could be hallucinating or mistaken), and neither is preaching / dogma / etc.

Sorry I can't provide you God or a god to analyze or test. I can provide you with an entire list of trained scientists that have analyzed and tested data that makes them come to the conclusion that the earth is young and do believe in a Creator. I gave goat a list in a previous post. Let us put aside my personal relationship with God and pretend like I don't know Him. How do you explain the origin of man? of life? of the universe?

[Sir Hamilton]

You got a computer use it....google it....don't take my word for it.

Don't make your audience do your research for you. You bear the burden of citing your sources. This is taught in any university English 101 course. Your sources don't need to be APA or MLA format, but you're expected to at least provide a link. If you fail to do this, it's only your argument that suffers.

In a previous post I listed scientists that believed in a young earth. I don't have the time nor the inclination to write a 'book' on this. If you want to learn then go research it if you don't then continue to believe in which scientists teach the things that tickle you ears.

[Sir Hamilton]

Oh I just read in a book and believed it....just like you read what some person wrote about their so called science of abiogenesis and evolution and decided to believe it. You got a computer use it....google it....don't take my word for it.

Not all books are the same. What are your criteria for determining which books you believe and don't believe?

Concerning science...I would prefer to read books by trained scientists and then draw my own conclusions based on my own knowledge and experiences.

[Sir Hamilton]

Oh I just read in a book and believed it....just like you read what some person wrote about their so called science of abiogenesis and evolution and decided to believe it. You got a computer use it....google it....don't take my word for it.

Oh, I am sure Crick came up with that idea.. but.. it's not very scientific. There is zero evidence for it. There IS evidence that the original organic chemicals might have been delivered by comet, but not a space ship.

It seems to me that a skill that should be developed is the ability to evaluate the strength of a claim. With out this ability,, and the ability to be rational, lots of wild, unsupported claims could be taken for fact.

Oh I don't agree with Crick I was just showing you the lengths that atheists and agnostics (as Crick was) will go to in order to deny the idea that God created life.

Except of course, that has nothing to do with God.. it is a flaked out idea that he through out there..

Frankly, it does not mean what you say you mean.

Now, other than begging the question, what evidence do you have?

For a young Earth? I just gave you a list of scientists that came to the conclusion form their studies that the earth is young. That is all the evidence that I am going to give you.

[Danmark]

I just gave you a list of scientists that came to the conclusion form their studies that the earth is young. That is all the evidence that I am going to give you.

And is that because copying a list is the extent of your knowledge of a 'young earth' or creationism?
You failed to give a cite for the list you cut and pasted. Here it is:
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing ... on-as-bunk

As an example of how dopey that list is, and why it presents such a pathetically poor argument, the 6th "scientist" on the list is Francis Bacon. Bacon died 233 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Your list of "scientists" also includes dentists.

The list includes very few biologists. One of the few is Arthur Jones, who admits his views are considered 'heretical' and claims 'I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind.'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... thur-jones
Contrast his 'scientific' opinion with
https://www.google.com/search?q=evoluti ... 68&bih=768

Since your list is so very long, surely you will be able to find at least one biologist on it who has written a peer reviewed paper demonstrating young earth creationism, and explain and argue his thesis.

[Sir Hamilton]

I just gave you a list of scientists that came to the conclusion form their studies that the earth is young. That is all the evidence that I am going to give you.

And is that because copying a list is the extent of your knowledge of a 'young earth' or creationism?
You failed to give a cite for the list you cut and pasted. Here it is:
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing ... on-as-bunk

As an example of how dopey that list is, and why it presents such a pathetically poor argument, the 6th "scientist" on the list is Francis Bacon. Bacon died 233 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Your list of "scientists" also includes dentists.

The list includes very few biologists. One of the few is Arthur Jones, who admits his views are considered 'heretical' and claims 'I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind.'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... thur-jones
Contrast his 'scientific' opinion with
https://www.google.com/search?q=evoluti ... 68&bih=768

Since your list is so very long, surely you will be able to find at least one biologist on it who has written a peer reviewed paper demonstrating young earth creationism, and explain and argue his thesis.

I find it rather rude and somewhat childish of you to just dismiss this list as 'pathetic and dopey'. What credentials do you have to dismiss these scientists' research? Did you pore over everyone of those works? And yes Bacon believed in a young earth....a man who contributed much more to real science than Darwin and most definitely you. Goat wanted some scientists that believed in a young earth and I gave it to him and all you can do is just criticize. I find you to be rather narrow minded and only agree with so called scientists that draw conclusions that agree with your preconceived beliefs and wishful thinkings.

[Danmark]

I just gave you a list of scientists that came to the conclusion form their studies that the earth is young. That is all the evidence that I am going to give you.

And is that because copying a list is the extent of your knowledge of a 'young earth' or creationism?
You failed to give a cite for the list you cut and pasted. Here it is:
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing ... on-as-bunk

As an example of how dopey that list is, and why it presents such a pathetically poor argument, the 6th "scientist" on the list is Francis Bacon. Bacon died 233 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Your list of "scientists" also includes dentists.

The list includes very few biologists. One of the few is Arthur Jones, who admits his views are considered 'heretical' and claims 'I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind.'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... thur-jones
Contrast his 'scientific' opinion with
https://www.google.com/search?q=evoluti ... 68&bih=768

Since your list is so very long, surely you will be able to find at least one biologist on it who has written a peer reviewed paper demonstrating young earth creationism, and explain and argue his thesis.

I find it rather rude and somewhat childish of you to just dismiss this list as 'pathetic and dopey'. What credentials do you have to dismiss these scientists' research? Did you pore over everyone of those works? And yes Bacon believed in a young earth....a man who contributed much more to real science than Darwin and most definitely you. Goat wanted some scientists that believed in a young earth and I gave it to him and all you can do is just criticize. I find you to be rather narrow minded and only agree with so called scientists that draw conclusions that agree with your preconceived beliefs and wishful thinkings.

A personal attack neither supports your argument, nor attacks the counter argument. I simply attacked your claims, the argument and the methodology of the argument. Please support your claims and argument, or withdraw them.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post 2584 -- My working hypothesis is that the universe has always been. It may have changed and gone thru endless cycles but it has always been. This, to me, is a preferable conclusion than that it suddenly came from nothing.

I have read the last 50 posts on this thread. The above position is very confusing to me. Sir Hamilton suggests that your general position on this thread is inconsistent. I am inclined to agree. Danmark, how can you make such a wide assumption as the one highlighted, while taking exception to a much less subjective notion of an earth that is cosmically new?

Do you believe that there are billions of galaxies?
Do you believe in the absolute inevitability of life on other planets?

[Goat]

What kind of evidence would you accept? [for God's existence]

Empirical, testable evidence, analyzed by trained scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Personal experience isn't enough (I could be hallucinating or mistaken), and neither is preaching / dogma / etc.

Sorry I can't provide you God or a god to analyze or test. I can provide you with an entire list of trained scientists that have analyzed and tested data that makes them come to the conclusion that the earth is young and do believe in a Creator. I gave goat a list in a previous post. Let us put aside my personal relationship with God and pretend like I don't know Him. How do you explain the origin of man? of life? of the universe?

Can you show that they are actually trained in the fields they are making a claim about?? I mean, an engineer, or mathematician can make all kinds of claims, yet, they don't have training in physics, geology, cosmology and other scientific disciples.

Not only that.. can you show that the information they present (if any) is reasonable and accurate?

[Danmark]

re Danmark Post 2584 -- My working hypothesis is that the universe has always been. It may have changed and gone thru endless cycles but it has always been. This, to me, is a preferable conclusion than that it suddenly came from nothing.

I have read the last 50 posts on this thread. The above position is very confusing to me. Sir Hamilton suggests that your general position on this thread is inconsistent. I am inclined to agree. Danmark, how can you make such a wide assumption as the one highlighted, while taking exception to a much less subjective notion of an earth that is cosmically new?

Do you believe that there are billions of galaxies?
Do you believe in the absolute inevitability of life on other planets?

Please show me in these 50 posts you've read, where I said "the Earth is not 'cosmically new.'" Sir Hamilton maintains the earth is 6000 years old. The evidence suggests it is about 4.5 billion years old.

I don't know what you mean by 'cosmically new,' but in any case I don't recall using that term in this context.

Could you specifically point out the inconsistency in suggesting the universe has always been? Sir Hamilton has not done so. Other than a change in labels, what is the difference between stating "God has always been; he has no beginning and no ending," and "The Universe has always been; it has no beginning and no ending?"

I don't like to state things in your terms of "absolute inevitability." There are probably at least 170 billion galaxies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

Contrary to what some creationists and other theists maintain [That the odds against life as we know it evolving without a 'designer' are prohibitive] there are billions of 'goldilocks planets' in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-bill ... 8C11529186
So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.