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]

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.

I have supported my claims and argument. Please go back and read each everyone of my posts. Hey I have an idea....why don't you show me some proof that supports your claims and arguments?

[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?

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?

As I have told you before....go read and study what these scientists are saying...don't take my word for it. Stop being so narrow minded. You are being so skeptical and for what? Because you read or heard that the earth is 4 billion years old you just believe it. You didn't come to this conclusion 1st hand you are simply going by what other so called scientists have claimed. I gave you a small list of scientists who believe that science supports a young earth and you don't like that because it contradicts your beliefs.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post 22654--So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

Thank You for your reply Danmark. You believe in the inevitability of aliens. You believe that some of these life forms might be at a more advanced stage of development than that achieved by us to date. Our civilization might be quite new by comparison to others. Would it be unreasonable for us to regard these absolute, inevitable, habitable planets as possible locations for our Gods? The Egyptians looked towards Orion. Is it possible that there is an infinite progression within cosmic civilizations towards an ever higher God. I ask you this because you dismissed all possibility of alien interference on our planet due to a lack of evidence and you insist on arguing on a mute point about the age of the earth using human terms of description and measurement that continuously suggest antiquity.

Danmark, You have admitted that you sincerely believe in the absolute certainty of there existing an advanced life form that could conceivably be perceived as a God by us without any need for us to be apologetic for our belief in same.

[Goat]

I have supported my claims and argument. Please go back and read each everyone of my posts. Hey I have an idea....why don't you show me some proof that supports your claims and arguments?

You have mentioned some people. How is mentioning some people actually supporting what your claims are. Without actually presenting the arguments and evidence for those arguments, it ends up being 'the appeal to authority'..

[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.

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.

Huh? A book?

I just finished explaining that a link, in the very least, would suffice. I'm not asking for a book. I'm not even asking for an essay, an article, a biography, or a speech. Heck, I'm not even asking you to write more. You have made choices to currently involve yourself in a debate, where you bear the burden of backing up your claims with sufficient evidence that you're able to specifically reference.

Accuse me of not wanting to learn all you want... it's not my job, as your reader, to read your mind, and Google the relevant keywords, just for the hopes of maybe eventually having the privileged of knowing what you're talking about.

You're entitled to do (or not do) as you wish, but don't expect your arguments to pull much weight.

[Danmark]

re Danmark Post 22654--So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

Thank You for your reply Danmark. You believe in the inevitability of aliens. You believe that some of these life forms might be at a more advanced stage of development than that achieved by us to date. . . .

I'll cut this off right there, and not read further. You're not getting off to a good start here. I suggest that rather than misstate what I wrote, you simply quote it and respond.
You not only misstate what I wrote, but you've taken pains to put your words into my mouth after I explicitly said the contrary.

Additionally, you made a claim of inconsistency on my part. I asked you to point it out. You've failed to do so; therefore I ask that you withdraw your claim.

[Star]

re Danmark Post 22654--So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

Thank You for your reply Danmark. You believe in the inevitability of aliens. You believe that some of these life forms might be at a more advanced stage of development than that achieved by us to date. . . .

I'll cut this off right there, and not read further. You're not getting off to a good start here. I suggest that rather than misstate what I wrote, you simply quote it and respond.
You not only misstate what I wrote, but you've taken pains to put your words into my mouth after I explicitly said the contrary.

Additionally, you made a claim of inconsistency on my part. I asked you to point it out. You've failed to do so; therefore I ask that you withdraw your claim.

I agree with your approach. You're not obligated to read any further. That's ridiculous.

[instantc]

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?"

Hilbert's Hotel suggests that there cannot exist an infinite amount of anything, which would mean that the universe cannot have an infinite past. The same objection doesn't apply to God, who having created the space/time would exist outside the physical time (whatever that means). That's the difference you are looking for.

[Danmark]

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?"

Hilbert's Hotel suggests that there cannot exist an infinite amount of anything, which would mean that the universe cannot have an infinite past. The same objection doesn't apply to God, who having created the space/time would exist outside the physical time (whatever that means). That's the difference you are looking for.

Perhaps you missed my refutation of Hilbert's Hotel. If an argument can be both easy and brilliant, it was. At any rate one can simply define the universe as being 'outside space/time'. As you imply about 'physical time' it may be difficult to define. Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?' If my point is not clear [likely it isn't ] what I'm saying is that when we use undefinable terms like 'god' and 'the universe' we literally don't know what we're talking about. When I say 'universe' I mean all possible universes, multiverses, gods, and everything that could be, has been or ever was.

[Danmark]

If the universe can somehow have an external cause, why jump to the conclusion it has a personality, or is personal or is 'God?' Actually there is an easier way to deal with this. If we define the universe as everything that exists, then there is no external cause. Once one posits an external cause, that cause instantly and simultaneously is part of the universe.

It is just a mathematical game like Hilbert's hotel, which contains a logical paradox.
In Hilbert's hotel there are a countably infinite number of rooms that are all occupied.
Supposedly the problem arises when a new guest wants to check in.

The only reason this is a paradox is because of the use of a false or differing definition of 'infinite.' Here's what I mean:

There are in infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of people. Hilbert's Hotel suggests that the number of people is infinite +1 (or the number of rooms is infinite minus 1). When two numbers are both infinite, there is no limitation on either. Or another way of saying it is that the two infinite numbers must be the same, no matter how many word games you want to play to show otherwise.