It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

Huh? There was something I failed to see? There were details I failed to pay attention to? The style of my debating may be different, but it is what makes the most sense to me. Thank you for not expanding the debate any further. Your statement set is inconsistent as there are contradictory statements. 1) C vs E From R2 what you state by "…to see the direct correlation between proving evolutions(sp) theory as a means to prove if The God of Christianity existed." seems contrary to your statement in R1 "Therefore it makes sense to have scientific proof that evolution is wrong and God does exist,…" The hope you must be expressing is that somehow the further development of evolution theory will prove God's involvement and more generally as I interpret your other statements that the demand for scientific evidence is warranted based on the hope for proof or disproof of God's existence by science. This is the point of the debate and even though you acknowledged it in R1 "…it is nonsense to try to force supernatural into science, as the two do not mix…", you counter yourself when you go on to say in R2 "It is a means to find out about the supernatural." This indicates an implicit inconsistency in your position which I suppose would be resolved by your conceding that repeatable scientific experiments are excluded from the supernatural, but that science theory may support certain historical facts and allow a certain hypothesis to stand. This if I am interpreting your statements correctly, we are in agreement with. In the argument between Darwinism and Creationism, Evolution Theory is sometimes disparaged as only a theory. This implies the understatement of the concept of ‘theory' as a theory is a body of statements, theorems, and laws, all considered as the truth rigorously shown to be so. Though a theory isn't the facts, it is supposed to explain the facts accurately, where the hypotheses which are not proven must still be justified with the facts and where exceptions between facts and theory are noted. Creationism cannot be called a theory, it can not be proven true or false since it postulates a super-natural source for gaps in science such as those exceptions found by anthropologists. In the studies of science, statements of a theory may only be proven within a system. Since the Creationism thesis postulates super-natural existence, a system which being outside of the empirical system, is not readily accessible to everyone. Proof of any Creationism postulate is dependent on the cooperation of the operators of that larger, super-natural system, and as the effects generated by them are not controllable by us, scientific proof will be at the least elusive, but within the definition of science, impossible. This debate, whether or not it makes sense to expect science to find evidence of supernatural existence hinges on the question of whether or not it is possible for science to determine supernatural causes or supernatural effects. I propose this separation of causal events as that I suspect you agree that a cause originating in the supernatural would go unnoticed by us and that we could not force such for experimental purposes. What we are left with then are only supernatural effects that may be available for our inspection. Thus you propose the surmising about the creation of the Grand Canyon. This is about as far as you can get from an scientific exposition, however, Noah's Flood is not in dispute and how literal is the translation of the Bible is not in dispute. Whether or not water literally covered the Earth is not significant to the truth of the Bible, but only that a significant enough deluge occurred needs to be shown. There are much better sites for evidence of the great flood. My favorite site for the deluge includes the area around the Black Sea and the Bosphorus Straits. Even though science may substantiate portions of the Bible and thus bolster claims for the religion, this substantiation of historical events does not provide scientific proof that they were supernatural effects. All we are left with is the testimony that Noah had been warned about the calamity that was to befall them. Proving the Bible to be accurate and true provides evidence as testimony to God's existence, but does not provide scientific evidence. Though you were not explicit, I suppose your ‘2 and 12' analogy or metaphor was meant to address the idea of ascribing the supernatural to the gaps or unknowns in a theory because it all makes for a nice story. This process if done right may be considered a proof in the sense of a logical proof as that basically all that is required for a logical proof is consistency, but this is not scientific evidence. For science, a proof not only requires consistency, but also substantiation by experimental data. The gaps in one theory are not scientific proof for some hypothesis. Categorical inconsistency is nonsense. For example, ‘Science will go blue in the face if the gain finds its heart on the indirect.' The dismissal of 1A) as nonsense means I failed to make my point about the inability of science to provide evidence for the supernatural. But since we failed to communicate, I see no value attempting to expand these comments further as you indicated no path for me to follow to help you. I will merely reassert 1A) as response, hoping that the statements above will aid interpretation. 2) Jesus is god. A) Again the scientific substantiation of historical events is not scientific proof of supernatural effects. Scientific proof requires use of the scientific method. Scientific method requires repeatable experiments. Propose an experiment that may be conducted to show a supernatural effect. B) Here in R2, opposite to my basic claim, you claim that it is not beyond science to prove the supernatural aspect, but offer no indication how this is so. For my claim I offer that if science discovers a mechanism, for instance, if science discovers the steps to how life came to be, science would only recognize and acknowledge the mechanisms as naturalistic as this is all that science is able to acknowledge. Any supernatural causes would be obscure. Again, how would someone conduct an experiment to prove that a spiritual agent is at work? In R2 you say scientific evidence is needed to prove the supernatural but do not say why it is needed. In the last paragraph of R1 you postulated needs to which I gave response 5). I say not only is it impossible to acquire scientific evidence , but also it is unnecessary given the enormous historical and living testimony. 3) Yes, science plays its role, in validating testimony and validated testimony plays its role as evidence, but testimony by a person or document, to include the video or film as documentation, is not scientific evidence. Testimony and scientific evidence are two separate categories. Testimony may be given by a person that they witnessed someone shooting, but the scientific evidence would come from the fingerprints on the gun matching the shooters. I have encountered before comments like yours that mention of ‘percentage of proof". I have wondered how this would be done. ‘Percent accurate' would suppose all the points of description to be known and then the degree of conformity could be determined, but even with the historical events that have been shown true, the supernatural points in the explanation remain unproven. 4) Yes, the voters were unkind to me in that last debate. My pointing to it as an example was to counter your comment in R1 that I "…miss the point in which people ask for scientific proof." I did chose a different track in this debate to make the same point in that debate. In this debate I chose to narrow the subject down to the singular negative in an effort at simplification. Whether or not scientific evidence should be disbarred is mute as scientific evidence for the supernatural is impossible.