Does God Exist? The proposition is that NO Christian God exists.

First of all, no I'm not offended. Clearly this is a passionate subject for you and I admire your passion. Okay! So you know the gospel, that's good! I'm sorry you think I used evasive tactics. I certainly didn't set out to do so. I admit there was certain aspects of your argument that weren't quite clear at first, but thanks for clearing that up. Well lets see if this round you feel if I've met the challenge? Okay! So, to summarise what you have just said in your latest reply. It's irrational to believe or accept a designer of the universe because evolution has made it so. Evolution has irrefutable evidence (according to your mother and grandfather). Evolution is ABSOLUTELY accepted by the scientific community. AMONG evolutionary biologists it has been estimated that only 1/1000 reject evolution for anything else. Firstly, I thought you said evolution was ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTED by the scientific community? Than why do (according to you) 1/1000 REJECT IT? Hmmm! seems abit shaky to me. Secondly, AMONG EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS it has been estimated that 1/1000 reject evolution for SOMETHING ELSE. I think I here the walls falling down! Forgive my humour. But clearly you can see that something doesn't add up here? Your claim is an invalid one. By what you claim your saying evolution is fact but there is no evidence whatsoever of any trans-species. The secular science community are ripping shreds from each other over the subject as you have kindly pointed out to us. And we're expected to believe our great descendant is a piece of slime from a rock. No wonder people are destroying each other at an enormous rate. When all they have to be thankful for is some accident billions of years ago is the product of who the are. "From slime to crime." That in essence is all we're being fed by those who reject the truth of God's Word. Many Universities and colleges have sold themselves out to evolution even though in reality, it's a HYPOTHESIS. You claim that I cannot prove that God exists and that he certainly did not create the universe in six days as the bible declares? Where's the facts? Right? So what this is is a presupposition. Correct? Well in your case the same stands, you presuppose evolution took place over billions of years. The simple fact remains none of us were there to see it. You claim one. I claim the other. I accept the Bible as the Word of God. Authoritative and true. You accept the hypothesis of a SECTION of the science community no matter how big it is. And that's where we stand. We have the same facts, we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in how we interpret them. I'd like to say at this point evolution has it's place. Micro-evolution that is! It says in Genesis 1:24, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the soul of life according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth, according to its kind. And it was so'." Fact-Animals and plant life populate the earth in there OWN kind. dogs are dogs, cats are cats and roses are roses. Now changes do occur within kinds such as what I've mentioned. We have different breeds of dogs and cats but substantially they remain dogs and they remain cats. There's different varieties of roses and again there still roses. Micro-evolution - "It suggests that limited change, within narrow limits, occurs throughout all living things." Which is known as the "Special Theory". Macro-evolution, which you have pointed out as fact, states, all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution'..." If so Macro-evolution is a hypothesis and not fact as you say. Then why do so many except it as so? In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Bales and Clark confirmed such an observation. "Evolution," they wrote, "is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained their education" (1966, p. 106). People believe in evolution because they have been taught that it is true. Also, as Henry Morris well stated the issue: "The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!" (1963, p. 26). Consider the hypothetical example of two college students discussing their professors and courses. One of the students, Joe, asks his friend, Mark, the following question: "Hey, Mark, do you believe in evolution? My professor says all smart folks do." Honestly, what is Mark supposed to say? If he says, "No, Joe, I don't believe in evolution," by definition he has admitted to being outside the sphere of all the "smart folks." On the other hand, if he says, "Yes, Joe, I do believe in evolution," he may be admitting to a belief based not on an examination of the evidence, but on the idea that he does not wish to be viewed by his peers as anything but "smart." Undoubtedly, many people today fall into this category. They do not accept evolution because they have seen evidence that establishes it as true. Rather, they believe it because doing so places them in the same category as others whom they consider to be intelligent. The simple fact is, however, that truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by the minority. Believing something based on the assumption that "everyone else" also believes it often can lead to disastrous results. As the late Guy N. Woods remarked: "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world" (1982, 124[1]:2). The Bible also has something to say on this, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." Matt 7:13 Without a doubt, there are many who believe in evolution because they have rejected God. For those who refuse to believe in the Creator, evolution becomes their only escape. Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for over twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that "evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible" (1929, 123:233). So it is clear that Macro-evolution is NOT FACT. It is a worldview. The Atheist and Agnostic reject the Creator. Therefore macro-evolution is how they and you view the world. So does Evolution make my argument pointless? I don't think so! "Even if your first logic was sound, and to create the human brain required something more complicated, then why could the same not be said of God, He's so much more complicated than a human brain, so something far more complicated than even Him must have been used to create Him, according to your logic." My view of this is that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."-Gen1.1. Isa 44:6 "So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I am the First, and I am the Last; and there is no God except Me." God IS and He EXISTS from HIMSELF. In this light my logic is perfectly sound. Sources derrived from. Answersingenesis.com, Apologetics Press :: Sensible ScienceIs Evolution a "Fact" of Science? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.