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?

[Sonofason]

Read the New Testament. I would suggest, due to the gravity of the subject matter, that you read it leaving behind all bias, if that is at all possible for you. When I first read it, it seemed to me . . . .

OK:
We start at Matthew, chapter 1. Everything seems fine . . . and . . . then . . .

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mary and Joseph are betrothed and suddenly Mary is with child by the 'Holy Spirit.' Joseph sees this event as if 'by the Holy Spirit' is a euphemism for Mary has a boyfriend. But Joseph is overly kindly and fair, or else he knows HE is the culprit, so he wants to shut her up to avoid scandal. Then an angel flies in the window and tells him that no, in this case the 'Holy Spirit' is no euphemism, there really is a 'Holy Spirit' something that impregnates Earth girls and Joseph should be cool.

If we read this passage with no biases or preconceptions the neutral reader says, "Are you serious? I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but I know it is fiction all the same."

Sorry, but your little test is absurd. You can only read this and not go away laughing if you have a bias going in that it is the absolute truth, despite the fact it contradicts every thing you know or have personally experienced.

How is this any different than the flying horse in the Quran or baby Kal-El leaving planet Krypton in a rocket ship to land on Earth with super powers?

Okay, so you believe that Joseph lied, and that Mary also lied.

When you start with two blatant misstatements of what I wrote, I refuse to read further. I never said either lied. I simply took the NT as you suggested, but could not get past the first chapter without reading utter fairytale nonsense. When one encounters such silliness, why even assume that Mary and Joseph are real people, are anything other than characters in a sci fi story? No I don't believe they lied. I see no reason to believe they even exist. Admit it. You have no evidence to suggest they are anything other than characters in a book. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution is much greater than the theory that Mary and Joseph are more than characters in a book.

And please, do not make false claims about what I write.

I did not make any false claims. I was putting forth a proposition. I was simply restating what I thought you were trying to say. I did not quote you when I said what I said. And of course, I will interpret what you say any way I choose to interpret it. If I quoted you incorrectly, you have every right to ask that I not make a false claim about what you write. But I did not quote you. But I am most certainly free to draw my own conclusions about what you write. And I intend on doing so in the future, that is of course when ever I feel compelled to do so.

[Danmark]

Its possible I don't correctly understand your argument. Please explain it for me in more simple terms, id est, use small words so I can understand.

I'm sorry man, I absolutely do NOT mean as a diss or anything, but if you lack the basic scientific education to figure it out by yourself, then I honestly doubt that I'll be able to convey this to you in a simple enough way that you'll understand it.

The best I can do is direct you to a video that explains EXACTLY this subject. Hopefully you can follow it. It's only 4 minute long.

Here is it:

Let me know your thoughts

Interesting video thanks for sharing it.

I wonder if that is the only possible explanation for this observation? I'm glad the evolutionists have an answer for why we have fewer chromosomes than the apes now. That always seemed a bit of an awkward fact.

I guess its fairly likely that our two common human ancestors both had a fused 2nd and 3rd chromosome. Makes me wonder about all the other life on the planet... If we all share a common ancestor then I guess there's been a lot of fusion of chromosomes thats been happening... What are the odds?

Glad I'm not a betting man.[/quote]
That's the way it works with science, particularly with the theory of evolution which has been proved so overwhelmingly it is considered a fact, not just a theory by the majority of biologists. Each new discovery supports evolution and further reveals creationism to be discredited.

The farther apart two species are on the evolutionary tree, the more difference we see with their chromosomes. This supports the fact of evolution rather than cast it in doubt.

[Sonofason]

I get it. You don't have any evidence that evolution is true.

I for one have no problem believing that evolution is true. It seems to me to be a rather reasonable theory. If there should be evidence in existence that shows that evolution is true, I have not seen it. ...

You appear to be making contradictory statements. You claim there is no evidence that evolution is true, yet you also say it is a reasonable theory.

Let's clarify.
Are you saying there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Are you saying there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution, but it fails to prove evolution is 'true' absolutely?

Actually, I have not stated that there is no evidence that evolution is true. What I have stated is that "no evidence no belief" has not provided any evidence that evolution is true. All he has provided is claims of evidence that evolution is true. Claims are not evidence. I have even gone out on a limb and stated that "no evidence no belief" has never seen evidence that evolution is true, and that he accepts such a notion as true by faith.

I suggest that evolution is a reasonable theory because I have accepted by faith that scientists who claim to have evidence that genetic mutations can occur that can be passed from generation to generation are telling the truth. I have not seen their evidence. I personally would not go so far as to say that one species can be transformed into an entirely new species however. I could however accept that a species could evolve over time. That is not to say that a species becomes a new species, but that a species over time changes. It is scientists of evolution and biology who have set limits on what a species is. I do not accept their limits. Every generation of one kind of species is the same species as it's predecessor. My concept is rather more thoughtful and more reasonable than the notion that one species can become another species over time. We do not change into a new species over time, but a species may indeed change over time.

I am saying that I have faith that scientists are making observations. I have faith that they are recording their observations with some degree of accuracy. And so I have faith in the idea that a species can change over time. And so, if evolution is a gradual change in a species over time, I believe, by faith, that species do indeed change over time. But I have not seen any of this evidence. I have no idea if the evidence that supports evolution is overwhelming evidence or not. It sounds reasonable to me. It may indeed be reasonable. But I accept the idea by faith.

You're equivocating. There certainly is evidence for the validity of evolution. You do not deny this, but you like to claim you 'have not seen it.' It's there for you to see, but you apparently would prefer to say you take it on faith that it's reasonable, rather than admit the abundance of evidence.

Your motive is transparent. You want to place the overwhelming evidence for evolution in the same 'faith' category you put your belief in god so you can argue they are equivalent. They are obviously not equivalent. In the first there is tremendous evidence that you can examine if you want to. The result of that evidence is the conclusion evolution is valid based on simple logic and reason after observation of evidence.

This is completely distinct from faith in a god for whom you can produce no evidence, zero. All you can do is what you've done, claim you have personal unidentified, unverified, unrepeatable personal subjective 'data' you claim is evidence. To claim this faith scenario is the same as the scientific basis for evolution is preposterous.

And yet you, like "no evidence no belief", are incapable of providing any evidence that evolution is true. It seems you and I are in the same boat after-all.

Please man, stop this charade. Your attempt to draw an equivalency between the evidence for evolution and evidence for your fairy tales about talking donkeys failed miserably.

I offered you money, I offered you a first class trip with complimentary limo and 5 star hotel, for the opportunity to see empirical evidence for evolution which would require ZERO belief, and would just require direct observation of empirical objective data.

I applaud your effort, but seriously, stop.

Is this what Jesus would do? Stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la, I can't hear you"?

Please, just provide the evidence. You claim that evolution is true. Now please, prove it. And if you can't prove it, just show some evidence. Anything.

I gave you the evidence. A central telomere in human chromosome 2.

That is amazing. Hmmph, it just never occured to me that a central telomere in human chromosome 2 was even possible. It's just amazing. But it's certainly not evidence of evolution. At least, I don't consider it evidence of evolution. You'll have to do better than that. I don't accept an observation of telomeres in human chromosomes as evidence of anything. Nope, it seems that if I'm going to believe in evolution, I'm going to have to do it on faith, like you.

[Danmark]

That is amazing. Hmmph, it just never occured to me that a central telomere in human chromosome 2 was even possible. It's just amazing. But it's certainly not evidence of evolution. At least, I don't consider it evidence of evolution. You'll have to do better than that. I don't accept an observation of telomeres in human chromosomes as evidence of anything. Nope, it seems that if I'm going to believe in evolution, I'm going to have to do it on faith, like you.

You reveal the quality of your analysis and openness to truth and reality with every post. All you assert is your unsupported opinion. No, perhaps not even that. All we have is what you claim to be your mere assertions. There is no way to tell if you even believe the nonsense you litter the forum with.

What makes more sense is that you are an atheist who is bent on discrediting serious Christians. Keep it coming.

[Goat]

Its possible I don't correctly understand your argument. Please explain it for me in more simple terms, id est, use small words so I can understand.

I'm sorry man, I absolutely do NOT mean as a diss or anything, but if you lack the basic scientific education to figure it out by yourself, then I honestly doubt that I'll be able to convey this to you in a simple enough way that you'll understand it.

The best I can do is direct you to a video that explains EXACTLY this subject. Hopefully you can follow it. It's only 4 minute long.

Here is it:

Let me know your thoughts

Interesting video thanks for sharing it.

I wonder if that is the only possible explanation for this observation? I'm glad the evolutionists have an answer for why we have fewer chromosomes than the apes now. That always seemed a bit of an awkward fact.

I guess its fairly likely that our two common human ancestors both had a fused 2nd and 3rd chromosome. Makes me wonder about all the other life on the planet... If we all share a common ancestor then I guess there's been a lot of fusion of chromosomes thats been happening... What are the odds?

Glad I'm not a betting man.

That's the way it works with science, particularly with the theory of evolution which has been proved so overwhelmingly it is considered a fact, not just a theory by the majority of biologists. Each new discovery supports evolution and further reveals creationism to be discredited.

The farther apart two species are on the evolutionary tree, the more difference we see with their chromosomes. This supports the fact of evolution rather than cast it in doubt.[/quote]

Let me give you some MORE information. There is, living in china right now, a man, who is entirely healthy, that only has 44 chromosomes. genetically, two of the chromosomes fused, just like the chimp/man discrepancy.

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

[Sonofason]

That is amazing. Hmmph, it just never occured to me that a central telomere in human chromosome 2 was even possible. It's just amazing. But it's certainly not evidence of evolution. At least, I don't consider it evidence of evolution. You'll have to do better than that. I don't accept an observation of telomeres in human chromosomes as evidence of anything. Nope, it seems that if I'm going to believe in evolution, I'm going to have to do it on faith, like you.

You reveal the quality of your analysis and openness to truth and reality with every post. All you assert is your unsupported opinion. No, perhaps not even that. All we have is what you claim to be your mere assertions. There is no way to tell if you even believe the nonsense you litter the forum with.

What makes more sense is that you are an atheist who is bent on discrediting serious Christians. Keep it coming.

I had thought that with my persistence that you would at least try to put forth a little evidence that evolution is true, but as I had first surmised, you have no evidence to share that evolution is true. Your belief in evolution is clearly based in a faith in science. Admit it, you have never seen any evidence of evolution. Come on, it's easy. You're half way there.

[Goat]

That is amazing. Hmmph, it just never occured to me that a central telomere in human chromosome 2 was even possible. It's just amazing. But it's certainly not evidence of evolution. At least, I don't consider it evidence of evolution. You'll have to do better than that. I don't accept an observation of telomeres in human chromosomes as evidence of anything. Nope, it seems that if I'm going to believe in evolution, I'm going to have to do it on faith, like you.

You reveal the quality of your analysis and openness to truth and reality with every post. All you assert is your unsupported opinion. No, perhaps not even that. All we have is what you claim to be your mere assertions. There is no way to tell if you even believe the nonsense you litter the forum with.

What makes more sense is that you are an atheist who is bent on discrediting serious Christians. Keep it coming.

I had thought that with my persistence that you would at least try to put forth a little evidence that evolution is true, but as I had first surmised, you have no evidence to share that evolution is true. Your belief in evolution is clearly based in a faith in science. Admit it, you have never seen any evidence of evolution. Come on, it's easy. You're half way there.

Considering I have a TON of links from universities discussing the evidence of evolution, I think this claim is sort of disingenuous.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Sonofason]

What exactly would count as evidence of evolution to you?

[10CC]

[Replying to Sonofason]

What exactly would count as evidence of evolution to you?

If I may interject here Farwanderer, I mean no slight on SOS, just an opinion.
I think that there are some people who become most unpleasantly distressed by the refusal of non believers to accept what the believer is absolutely certain is evidence of their god. I think that this distress can manifest as a complete denial of what they believe is an atheist (unbeliever) doctrine and by extension any evidence for that erroneously categorized doctrine. The "doctrine" in question is of course the TOE. I think that some believers just tit for tat claim that whatever science (in their worldview science=atheist) says is evidence they will reject just as the atheist rejects their feelings as evidence.
I think that some believers are merely playing childish tit for tat. I may be wrong of course and am not claiming that this is SOS's motives.

[Sonofason]

That is amazing. Hmmph, it just never occured to me that a central telomere in human chromosome 2 was even possible. It's just amazing. But it's certainly not evidence of evolution. At least, I don't consider it evidence of evolution. You'll have to do better than that. I don't accept an observation of telomeres in human chromosomes as evidence of anything. Nope, it seems that if I'm going to believe in evolution, I'm going to have to do it on faith, like you.

You reveal the quality of your analysis and openness to truth and reality with every post. All you assert is your unsupported opinion. No, perhaps not even that. All we have is what you claim to be your mere assertions. There is no way to tell if you even believe the nonsense you litter the forum with.

What makes more sense is that you are an atheist who is bent on discrediting serious Christians. Keep it coming.

I had thought that with my persistence that you would at least try to put forth a little evidence that evolution is true, but as I had first surmised, you have no evidence to share that evolution is true. Your belief in evolution is clearly based in a faith in science. Admit it, you have never seen any evidence of evolution. Come on, it's easy. You're half way there.

Considering I have a TON of links from universities discussing the evidence of evolution, I think this claim is sort of disingenuous.

Well, I was not discussing the links and supposed evidences for evolution that you are now claiming to have access to. I was speaking with Danmark who provided links to discussions of evolution, wherein I have found no evidence that evolution is true. Perhaps you might share some of the evidence for evolution that you have, and I will determine whether or not you have any evidence that evolution is true. But to suggest that you have "a ton" of links from universities, as if links had weight, means nothing to me. Provide evidence for evolution. Links from universities don't have weight in this discussion. Evidence for evolution does.