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?

[instantc]

Have you ever thought critically about the statement Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence (EEREE)?

What does that actually mean?

I also oppose the false dichotomy between ordinary and extraordinary events. However, I think that the evidence for any claim should be able to overcome the initial implausibility of that claim.

The evidence itself for each event should be held to the same standard. Otherwise we are discriminating against the evidence on the basis the claim disagrees with our world view. Each event should then either pass or fail on its own merits. Whether or not one is more extraordinary than the other should be irrelevant at the outset.

Although I cannot refer to an authority, and you are thus free to disagree, this simply isn't how a rational person considers evidence. Consider my previous example of me claiming to have arrived at work (1) by car and (2) by an invisible jet pack.

[Star]

I'm sorry, but substituting one claim for another claim is not evidence. Please show me the evidence that "a second inactive centomere and a centrally located talomere are present in human chromosome 2".

This is just another claim. Now, prove your claim.

You should check out a little something called a "search engine".

I'm struggling to understand how your education is our responsibility.

Science meets its burden of evidence, whether you're familiar with the research, or not.

Here's the link, anyway. It took all of 20 seconds for me to find it.

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/ ... ch2003.pdf

I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding all these claims. Exactly which claim presented in this journal am I supposed to take as evidence of evolution? Perhaps you can explain the findings to me, in your own words please.

It confirms that two chromosomes fused when Homo sapiens and Neanderthals branched off from the rest of the apes. Other apes have 24 chromosomes, but we only have 23. This is very strong evidence that we share common descent with other apes. It's also key to understanding how we become so different.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1463 by Danmark]

Sonofason wrote:

Great. Now you've shown the source of your claims and opinions, but where is the evidence to support these opinions and claims? Please provide evidence that what you state here is true. Please provide evidence that these claims that you've quoted are true.

Danmark wrote:

I did you chose to ignore and redact the most important part of the post:

Peer-reviewed scientific journal indicates the findings were published eight years ago and can be reviewed and tested by those who say "... prove your claim."

And there we have it, another claim. Why is it that atheists such as yourself only provide claims, and never provide any evidence?

I'll tell you why. You don't understand the evidence. You believe what you hear by faith, because you believe in science. You have great faith Danmark, even greater faith than mine it seems.

I ask for evidence, and Danmark says I have to find my own evidence.

Danmark wrote:
So now it's your turn to do your own research or find peer reviewed experiments published in a scientific journal that disputes it.

Disputes what? --- The claims that you've just presented? I don't want to see more claims. I want you to show me evidence that the claims you've made are true. I want the evidence, not the claims of evidence. So, show the evidence.

Danmark wrote:

As I noted, the research was published 8 years ago, plenty of time for some Creationist research to attempt to contest it.

I think that before a Creationist is compelled to contest a claim, it should be forthcoming that the person making the original claim provide some evidence to support it. So, show some evidence to support your claims.

You've done exactly what I predicted you'd do. I supported the claim NENB gave, with evidence I found like Star did, in a 20 second search.

Then you claim the evidence itself is a mere claim. Apparently, as predicted, you simply regurgitate a reflexive 'prove it,' no matter what evidence you are presented with. This is not proper debate or argument. You are merely engaging in contradiction.

[bernee51]

You are merely engaging in contradiction.

No he isn't.



Sort of like...

(Rosencrantz and Guildenstern playing questions tennis)

[10CC]

You are merely engaging in contradiction.

No he isn't.



Sort of like...

(Rosencrantz and Guildenstern playing questions tennis)

There's much of merit in this I think.
[youtube][/youtube]

[99percentatheism]

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?

Isn't your existence evidence enough of a Creator?

If not, why not?

The path backwards in "time" shows that something is not caused by nothing making it happen. Isn't it better to ask why a particular God, should be considered the Creator? In the apologetics section, isn't it better to ask for "proof" of why this ir that God should be considered the authentic one? It's kind of a waste of time now to allow the mundane arguments between atheists and Theists to drone on walking a well-worn path.

Isn't the tears we produce from sad or happy emotions evidence of a Creator?

I believe the OP would have been better served by asking why individuals believe they are on the right track about God.

[Student]

[Replying to post 1451 by Jax Agnesson]

Assassinations happen very occasionally.

Apparently not if you were a Roman Emperor!

A quick check on 67 Emperors from Augustine to Vallentinian II reveals that while 26 (39%) were definitely murdered/assassinated, only 21 (31%) definitely died of natural causes. 8 (12%) died in battle and 6 (9%) committed suicide. The deaths of another 3 (4%) might have been natural causes or assassination and another 3 might (4%) have committed suicide or been assassinated.

Given that a number of Emperors committed suicide to avoid assassination, in a worse case scenario the Emperor had a 56% chance of being assassinated / murdered/committing suicide; in the best case scenario an Emperor had only slightly over a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding a violent death.

So your average Roman Emperor had more chance of being assassinated than dying of natural causes.

Applying these statistics to Julius Caesar, while we might be unsure regarding the exact details of his death, we shouldn’t be at all surprised if he was assassinated, which would be reflected in the quality of proofs we would require to convince us that he had in fact been assassinated.

[10CC]

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?

Isn't your existence evidence enough of a Creator?

No

If not, why not?

No evidence of any creator.

The path backwards in "time" shows that something is not caused by nothing making it happen.

WOW, a couple of thousand years of human history an a couple of hundred years of scientific discovery (which you reject) and you are able to make this claim for at least 14 billion years. Simply WOW

Isn't it better to ask why a particular God, should be considered the Creator? In the apologetics section, isn't it better to ask for "proof" of why this ir that God should be considered the authentic one? It's kind of a waste of time now to allow the mundane arguments between atheists and Theists to drone on walking a well-worn path.

Asking which man made god is the creator would seem to be pointless and since we only know of man made gods it is pointless.

Isn't the tears we produce from sad or happy emotions evidence of a Creator?

No that's called humanity, a condition you continually deny an unbeliever possesses..

I believe the OP would have been better served by asking why individuals believe they are on the right track about God.

Then perhaps you could initiate a thread with this purpose.

[instantc]

Isn't your existence evidence enough of a Creator?

Our existence explicitly shows that there are people, nothing more. If you think that it implicitly shows that there is a creator as well, it is up to you to support that notion and lay down the relevant thought process.

The path backwards in "time" shows that something is not caused by nothing making it happen.

If we follow the path of time backwards, it will no doubt eventually stop at something. It's a huge assumption on your part to assert that that something is a person.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 1456 by Philbert]

That's good enough for me. All hail, Sri Bozo. I'm converted