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]

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?

And, please explain WHY existence is evidence for a God.

My evidence for evolution is fossils.. and the fossils change over time. There also is the convergence of evidence of the DNA , There is also the evidence of having the same retrovirus insertion in the DNA that the morphology and fossil evidence show to be closely related.. .. which is convergence of evidence. The dates of the fossils are found through the use of the dating methods of palentology , geology and physics, which provide multiple different methods for dating the same fossil, and they just so happen to come up with the same dates. There also is the direct observation in lab conditions, and discoveries of types of fossils that are predicted based on the age and type of geology in the area.

Something that can be shown, examined, predictions made, and a mechanism described for.

You say that it is 'evidence for xyzzy', but unless you can explain WHY and HOW it is evidence for that, well, it is simply a statement of faith.

Your evidence is all just something that you read in a text book or heard a professor say...and you simply took their word for it. You have found no fossils yourself nor have you dated any. By the way Watson and Crick did say that there was no way that DNA just happened by chance as you evolutionists would have us believe. The dating methods used to date fossil vary and are unreliable. Got anything else? Oh and did you like my list of many young earth scientists?

And, how do you know what I did or did not do?? Please, be specific.

Please, show your source about "Watson and Crick", and show that this comment. Please, show yoru source, and the quote in context.

Back up your claims.

I just took a wild guess and it looks like I was right.lol Here is a snippet for you to think about- "Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings." Now it kind of surprises me that you have never heard of this but then again it shouldn't because anything you hear that contradicts the absurdity of abiogenesis and evolution you repress.

[Goat]

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?

And, please explain WHY existence is evidence for a God.

My evidence for evolution is fossils.. and the fossils change over time. There also is the convergence of evidence of the DNA , There is also the evidence of having the same retrovirus insertion in the DNA that the morphology and fossil evidence show to be closely related.. .. which is convergence of evidence. The dates of the fossils are found through the use of the dating methods of palentology , geology and physics, which provide multiple different methods for dating the same fossil, and they just so happen to come up with the same dates. There also is the direct observation in lab conditions, and discoveries of types of fossils that are predicted based on the age and type of geology in the area.

Something that can be shown, examined, predictions made, and a mechanism described for.

You say that it is 'evidence for xyzzy', but unless you can explain WHY and HOW it is evidence for that, well, it is simply a statement of faith.

Your evidence is all just something that you read in a text book or heard a professor say...and you simply took their word for it. You have found no fossils yourself nor have you dated any. By the way Watson and Crick did say that there was no way that DNA just happened by chance as you evolutionists would have us believe. The dating methods used to date fossil vary and are unreliable. Got anything else? Oh and did you like my list of many young earth scientists?

And, how do you know what I did or did not do?? Please, be specific.

Please, show your source about "Watson and Crick", and show that this comment. Please, show yoru source, and the quote in context.

Back up your claims.

I just took a wild guess and it looks like I was right.lol Here is a snippet for you to think about- "Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings." Now it kind of surprises me that you have never heard of this but then again it shouldn't because anything you hear that contradicts the absurdity of abiogenesis and evolution you repress.

And, where , pray tell, did he publish that in a peer reviewed article?
And, where did it say Watson fell for that?
'

[Sir Hamilton]

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?

And, please explain WHY existence is evidence for a God.

My evidence for evolution is fossils.. and the fossils change over time. There also is the convergence of evidence of the DNA , There is also the evidence of having the same retrovirus insertion in the DNA that the morphology and fossil evidence show to be closely related.. .. which is convergence of evidence. The dates of the fossils are found through the use of the dating methods of palentology , geology and physics, which provide multiple different methods for dating the same fossil, and they just so happen to come up with the same dates. There also is the direct observation in lab conditions, and discoveries of types of fossils that are predicted based on the age and type of geology in the area.

Something that can be shown, examined, predictions made, and a mechanism described for.

You say that it is 'evidence for xyzzy', but unless you can explain WHY and HOW it is evidence for that, well, it is simply a statement of faith.

Your evidence is all just something that you read in a text book or heard a professor say...and you simply took their word for it. You have found no fossils yourself nor have you dated any. By the way Watson and Crick did say that there was no way that DNA just happened by chance as you evolutionists would have us believe. The dating methods used to date fossil vary and are unreliable. Got anything else? Oh and did you like my list of many young earth scientists?

And, how do you know what I did or did not do?? Please, be specific.

Please, show your source about "Watson and Crick", and show that this comment. Please, show yoru source, and the quote in context.

Back up your claims.

I just took a wild guess and it looks like I was right.lol Here is a snippet for you to think about- "Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings." Now it kind of surprises me that you have never heard of this but then again it shouldn't because anything you hear that contradicts the absurdity of abiogenesis and evolution you repress.

And, where , pray tell, did he publish that in a peer reviewed article?
And, where did it say Watson fell for that?
'

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.

[Goat]

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.

[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.

[Goat]

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?

[Star]

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.

[Haven]

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.

[FarWanderer]

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?

[FarWanderer]

It's true that Relativity doesn't show that the universe has always existed. He is wrong.

Explain how please. Is, or is not, time part of the universe, according to relativity?

Since you mean that spacetime began with the Big Bang, along with all matter and radiation, and there is no "before", then you are correct, in this context. The universe has always existed, but as far as we know, only in this spacetime. I thought you meant the fundamental constituents of the universe are eternal, and have literally always existed, in a context that transcends time, such as in Big Bounce theory. Of course, this is beyond Relativity's scope.

Well, when you consider quantum mechanics (at least by my layman understanding), the very concepts of "before" and "after" start to break down as the past closely approaches the Big Bang. Even within the concept of the Big Bounce theory, it probably doesn't even make sense to say that one Bounce came "before" or "after" another. So, is comparing points in time in different spacetimes even intelligible?

I don't think so- at least not with our temporal language. When the word "always" is used, what context of time are we talking about, if not that of our spacetime? Are we talking about some kind of "absolute" time that we have never experienced and have no proof of? All we have to believe in such a thing is our intuition about the nature of time in general- an intuition that we formed in the context of a universe we have already proven functions in ways counter to that intuition.

In summary, if we aren't talking about this universe's spacetime when we use temporal language, what in heck are we even talking about?