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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to help3434]

You say you are tired of nonsense and then you repeat nonsense like science like replace philosophy. That is nonsense because science will never have the scope to replace philosophy.

That's your opinion. And that's what philosophy is. Opinion. And opinions are changeable, therefore abstract and therefore violate. Science deals in facts about the physical. A correct physical fact is inviolate. I'm not suggesting that it's wrong to have opinions. I am suggesting that opinions should be grounded in actual facts, as opposed to being grounded in make believe.

[Sir Hamilton]

I was asked to name two scholars that believed in a young Earth. There are more would you like more names? As for 'rubbish' that is your opinion as it is my opinion that the "science" that supports abiogenesis and evolution is complete rubbish.

Actually, what I'd like, instead of more names of non scientists or others writing outside their fields 50 years ago would be actual scientific arguments against the scientific process and findings that all agree on an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. The sciences that all support each other to come to this conclusion are varied. Young Earth creationism opposes the theory of evolution and theories in the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology, dendrochronology and others.

To rebut this you offer a 50 year old book by Whitcomb, who was not a scientist. In fact when 'Whitcomb set about preparing his dissertation for publication, and sought somebody with a PhD in science to check or write the chapters on the scientific aspects of the flood, but found himself unable to find any "Ph.D.s in geology today who take Genesis 6-9 seriously." '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Whitcomb

You err when you say 'all agree'. Not all scientists agree on the age of the earth. There are many scientists that don't agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you just blindly trust everything someone says because they claim to be a scientists? Do you just blindly believe whatever your science professor told you in college? Do you just blindly believe everything you read on the internet? The truth of the matter is danmark is that you really don't know, do you?....you just believe what others tell you.

[Sir Hamilton]

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

Yet, when it comes to professors, and text books, they are a MUCH better authority that some water engineer, or some theologian. I would much rather listen to someone who actually DID things in the field. Many of the college classes when it comes to geology also have FIELD work you have to do. There is evidence that is presented... and, it is not very difficult to go to some of those sites and do the work yourself.

It is not that difficult to go and do some field work, and discover for yourself that the claims of Henry Morris are inaccurate.

Now, it appears to me from what you said that you went into your class with a lot of preconceptions.. and honestly.. Darwin is not really discussed in biology classes these days, unless it's a really low level one where they are taking about it at a 90,000 feet level, and more historical than anything else.

I notice , except for appeals to authority, and disparaging remarks about evolution, well, you have not actually PRESENTED any evidence.

That's one of the things about evidence. It's things that can be presented that can be examined by others. It doesn't matter WHO presents it. Then, comes the argument based on the evidence... and it can be shown to either be inaccurate, or missing information that refutes that interpretation, or it can be shown to be plausible.

The people who you put out there as people giving evidence can be shown to have opinions about the evidence that are not plausible.

When it comes to paleontology and evolution, not only do they present evidence, they present the convergence of evidence from multiple disciplines. I can show you how fossils change over time... and use the dating methods used by physics and geology , which often have multiple methods that JUST so happen to give the same date when dating items. The methods can be explained, and independently confirmed.

Now, other than appeal to authority, do you have actual EVIDENCE that is 'public knowledge' that you can show me, and explain to me how the conclusions that are reached with this 'evidence' are supported?

What kind of evidence would you accept? Would you accept God appearing to you? talking to you? and even then could you really be sure that it is not God but your own imagination? Ahh i know if i put it in a text book that says science on it then you would believe wouldn't you goat? Or even better if a science professor told you then you would really really believe then wouldn't you? Because afterall you really don't know, you just believe what 'they' tell you that you are supposed to believe so that you can be included in the clique of the "educated" elite.

[Danmark]

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

Yet, when it comes to professors, and text books, they are a MUCH better authority that some water engineer, or some theologian. I would much rather listen to someone who actually DID things in the field. Many of the college classes when it comes to geology also have FIELD work you have to do. There is evidence that is presented... and, it is not very difficult to go to some of those sites and do the work yourself.
Now, other than appeal to authority, do you have actual EVIDENCE that is 'public knowledge' that you can show me, and explain to me how the conclusions that are reached with this 'evidence' are supported?

What kind of evidence would you accept? Would you accept God appearing to you? talking to you? and even then could you really be sure that it is not God but your own imagination? Ahh i know if i put it in a text book that says science on it then you would believe wouldn't you goat? Or even better if a science professor told you then you would really really believe then wouldn't you? Because afterall you really don't know, you just believe what 'they' tell you that you are supposed to believe so that you can be included in the clique of the educated elite.

You are still appealing to authority instead of taking the challenge to demonstrate the science you rely on. Or do you concede that you simply rely on the Bible as your source of information on the variation of the species and the origin and age of the Earth. You have yet to answer any science question with science, or demonstrate any knowledge of science and how it works.

[instantc]

Stephan Hawking says that philosophy is no longer necessary. It has been replaced by science. I came to the same conclusion decades ago. We no longer have to ruminate about the workings of the universe.

That's a philosophical argument right there, not a scientific one. Granted that it's a very poor argument that you are making, but it's still a philosophical one. Thus, by assuming that your above argument should have any merit at all, you are implicitly accepting that philosophical arguments have merit in reality.

[Goat]

I was asked to name two scholars that believed in a young Earth. There are more would you like more names? As for 'rubbish' that is your opinion as it is my opinion that the "science" that supports abiogenesis and evolution is complete rubbish.

Actually, what I'd like, instead of more names of non scientists or others writing outside their fields 50 years ago would be actual scientific arguments against the scientific process and findings that all agree on an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. The sciences that all support each other to come to this conclusion are varied. Young Earth creationism opposes the theory of evolution and theories in the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology, dendrochronology and others.

To rebut this you offer a 50 year old book by Whitcomb, who was not a scientist. In fact when 'Whitcomb set about preparing his dissertation for publication, and sought somebody with a PhD in science to check or write the chapters on the scientific aspects of the flood, but found himself unable to find any "Ph.D.s in geology today who take Genesis 6-9 seriously." '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Whitcomb

You err when you say 'all agree'. Not all scientists agree on the age of the earth. There are many scientists that don't agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you just blindly trust everything someone says because they claim to be a scientists? Do you just blindly believe whatever your science professor told you in college? Do you just blindly believe everything you read on the internet? The truth of the matter is danmark is that you really don't know, do you?....you just believe what others tell you.

Please show that 'many scientists' don't believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Make sure that the scientists aren't 'engineers' or 'computer scientits', but actually have a position in the field in which they are making the claim.

[Sir Hamilton]

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

Yet, when it comes to professors, and text books, they are a MUCH better authority that some water engineer, or some theologian. I would much rather listen to someone who actually DID things in the field. Many of the college classes when it comes to geology also have FIELD work you have to do. There is evidence that is presented... and, it is not very difficult to go to some of those sites and do the work yourself.
Now, other than appeal to authority, do you have actual EVIDENCE that is 'public knowledge' that you can show me, and explain to me how the conclusions that are reached with this 'evidence' are supported?

What kind of evidence would you accept? Would you accept God appearing to you? talking to you? and even then could you really be sure that it is not God but your own imagination? Ahh i know if i put it in a text book that says science on it then you would believe wouldn't you goat? Or even better if a science professor told you then you would really really believe then wouldn't you? Because afterall you really don't know, you just believe what 'they' tell you that you are supposed to believe so that you can be included in the clique of the educated elite.

You are still appealing to authority instead of taking the challenge to demonstrate the science you rely on. Or do you concede that you simply rely on the Bible as your source of information on the variation of the species and the origin and age of the Earth. You have yet to answer any science question with science, or demonstrate any knowledge of science and how it works.

I believe that God created the universe. I believe that God created life. I believe that God created man. Is there a universe? is there life? is there man? i would have to answer yes, yes, yes...and that is my evidence. What is your evidence?

[Goat]

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

Yet, when it comes to professors, and text books, they are a MUCH better authority that some water engineer, or some theologian. I would much rather listen to someone who actually DID things in the field. Many of the college classes when it comes to geology also have FIELD work you have to do. There is evidence that is presented... and, it is not very difficult to go to some of those sites and do the work yourself.
Now, other than appeal to authority, do you have actual EVIDENCE that is 'public knowledge' that you can show me, and explain to me how the conclusions that are reached with this 'evidence' are supported?

What kind of evidence would you accept? Would you accept God appearing to you? talking to you? and even then could you really be sure that it is not God but your own imagination? Ahh i know if i put it in a text book that says science on it then you would believe wouldn't you goat? Or even better if a science professor told you then you would really really believe then wouldn't you? Because afterall you really don't know, you just believe what 'they' tell you that you are supposed to believe so that you can be included in the clique of the educated elite.

You are still appealing to authority instead of taking the challenge to demonstrate the science you rely on. Or do you concede that you simply rely on the Bible as your source of information on the variation of the species and the origin and age of the Earth. You have yet to answer any science question with science, or demonstrate any knowledge of science and how it works.

I believe that God created the universe. I believe that God created life. I believe that God created man. Is there a universe? is there life? is there man? i would have to answer yes, yes, yes...and that is my evidence. What is your evidence?

And how is that evidence that "God Created man"?? or 'God created Life", or "God created the universe"?? Show the WHY of that claim. What is the model, how does it get put together, or, are you just begging the question?

[Sir Hamilton]

I was asked to name two scholars that believed in a young Earth. There are more would you like more names? As for 'rubbish' that is your opinion as it is my opinion that the "science" that supports abiogenesis and evolution is complete rubbish.

Actually, what I'd like, instead of more names of non scientists or others writing outside their fields 50 years ago would be actual scientific arguments against the scientific process and findings that all agree on an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. The sciences that all support each other to come to this conclusion are varied. Young Earth creationism opposes the theory of evolution and theories in the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology, dendrochronology and others.

To rebut this you offer a 50 year old book by Whitcomb, who was not a scientist. In fact when 'Whitcomb set about preparing his dissertation for publication, and sought somebody with a PhD in science to check or write the chapters on the scientific aspects of the flood, but found himself unable to find any "Ph.D.s in geology today who take Genesis 6-9 seriously." '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Whitcomb

You err when you say 'all agree'. Not all scientists agree on the age of the earth. There are many scientists that don't agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you just blindly trust everything someone says because they claim to be a scientists? Do you just blindly believe whatever your science professor told you in college? Do you just blindly believe everything you read on the internet? The truth of the matter is danmark is that you really don't know, do you?....you just believe what others tell you.

Please show that 'many scientists' don't believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Make sure that the scientists aren't 'engineers' or 'computer scientits', but actually have a postition in the field that they are making the claim.






Is this enough or would you like more?

•Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
•Dr. Kevin Anderson, Microbiology - Biography
•Mark Armitage, Biology - Biography
•Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
•Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
•Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
•Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
•Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
•Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
•Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
•Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
•Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
•Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
•Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
•Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
•Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
•Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
•Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
•Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
•Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
•Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
•Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
•Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
•Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
•Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
•Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
•Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
•Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
•Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
•Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
•Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
•Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
•Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
•Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
•Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
•Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
•Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
•Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
•Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
•Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
•Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
•Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
•Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
•John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
•Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
•Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
•Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
•Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
•Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
•Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
•D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
•Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
•George T. Javor, Biochemistry
•Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
•Dr. David Kaufman, Human Anatomy - Biography
•John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
•Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
•Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
•Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
•Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
•Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
•Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
•Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
•Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
•Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
•Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
•Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
•Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
•Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
•Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
•Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
•Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
•Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
•Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
•Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
•Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
•Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
•Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope) - See also a refutation of the argument Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative)
•Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
•Michael Oard, Atmospheric Science - Biography
•Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
•Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
•Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
•Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
•Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
•Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
•Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
•Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
•Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
•Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
•Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
•Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
•Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
•Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
•Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
•Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
•William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
•Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
•Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
•Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
•Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
•Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
•Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
•Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
•Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
•A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
•Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
•Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
•Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
•Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

[Sir Hamilton]

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

Yet, when it comes to professors, and text books, they are a MUCH better authority that some water engineer, or some theologian. I would much rather listen to someone who actually DID things in the field. Many of the college classes when it comes to geology also have FIELD work you have to do. There is evidence that is presented... and, it is not very difficult to go to some of those sites and do the work yourself.
Now, other than appeal to authority, do you have actual EVIDENCE that is 'public knowledge' that you can show me, and explain to me how the conclusions that are reached with this 'evidence' are supported?

What kind of evidence would you accept? Would you accept God appearing to you? talking to you? and even then could you really be sure that it is not God but your own imagination? Ahh i know if i put it in a text book that says science on it then you would believe wouldn't you goat? Or even better if a science professor told you then you would really really believe then wouldn't you? Because afterall you really don't know, you just believe what 'they' tell you that you are supposed to believe so that you can be included in the clique of the educated elite.

You are still appealing to authority instead of taking the challenge to demonstrate the science you rely on. Or do you concede that you simply rely on the Bible as your source of information on the variation of the species and the origin and age of the Earth. You have yet to answer any science question with science, or demonstrate any knowledge of science and how it works.

I believe that God created the universe. I believe that God created life. I believe that God created man. Is there a universe? is there life? is there man? i would have to answer yes, yes, yes...and that is my evidence. What is your evidence?

And how is that evidence that "God Created man"?? or 'God created Life", or "God created the universe"?? Show the WHY of that claim. What is the model, how does it get put together, or, are you just begging the question?

That is my evidence. Exsistence is my evidence of a God. That and the fact that God and i talk...but i wouldn't expect you to believe or understand that. Now where is your evidence?