Atheism Evolution vs Creation by God

Thanks, Yoshidino, once again I'm glad we're able to have an actual debate on here instead of just arguing in comments.Scripture =/= historical"we have very much manuscript evidence that prove to be unaltered and unchanged"-If you are to make a claim that we have evidence to support the idea, let alone prove it, that much of a manuscript has been unaltered or unchanged, you'll need to provide a source. I can say, for example, Amelius was a Greek philosopher of the second half of the third century, and that would hold just as much merit as your assertion, considering there is nothing to back it up other than your/my words. However, I actually have a source - a book written by a Professor at Providence College, which can be seen here [1], but also, more specifically related to Amelius, individual chapters, downloadable via PDF here [2]. So you and I both made a claim, however my claim was supported with a quick informative sentence about the professor who published a book regarding what I'm talking about, as well as the textbook, which holds dozens of dozens of sources to back itself up with."This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings"-You said we have manuscripts that match each other. Please, I'd like to see your sources to back up this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you really do need some type of source to back this up with."it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books..."-Let me stop you here. There is zero difference between someone writing something down now, in the year 2014, and someone writing something down in the year 237, 361, 498... If neither has any type of proof or evidence or logic behind their claims, their "writings," or as you call them, manuscripts, hold no merit. I can write that a comet flew across the sky and glowed colours of pink and green and blue, and in the year 3700 someone could read that. Would they believe me? Why would they? Because I wrote it 1700 years ago? Time has no relevance to truth.The difference between biblical manuscript or scripture and world history books is that the history books we have are backed with significant evidence. Carbon dating, tracing DNA samples, fossil examination and other forensic studies can show evidence that supports a claim such as, say, Columbus finding America, or more recently, the Holocaust, which I'll get back to near the end of this. Did Columbus find America? Well, DNA evidence can back up our claims. The path across the pacific that DNA from old chicken bones took suggests that Europeans, not Polynesians, were the first to find South America [3], [4].See the research put into ensuring world history books are as accurate as possible? Tracing DNA of chicken bones back hundreds of years across South America and the Pacific can show the relation to Europeans and Polynesians, and in turn validate our claims that Columbus could have very well been the first to land in South America.A person who wrote something thousands of years ago is not the same as extensive DNA forensics research. However if it makes you feel better, Columbus also had a diary, which, well, was translated about a hundred years ago [5], and unfortunately, quoting my source here [6], "The only version of the diary of the first voyage that we have is the one transcribed by Bartolome de Las Casas in the 1530s."This is all reasonable evidence that suggests Columbus did find America - Chicken bone DNA, diary entries, writings, and just the idea of doing something like he did does seem possible. Our history books can still have plenty of information about Columbus, even though he died about 500 years ago. Our history books aren't written by Joe who owns the corner store down the street, they're written by historians who heavily study ancient writings and conduct experiments and incredible research on the topic at hand, as well as incorporating scientists and forensic analysists to confirm hypothesis, etc. It isn't as simple as "well, these two guys wrote the same thing, so it's obviously true.""Miracles"Unfortunately for the both of us, your links to Wikipedia just direct me to the main page. Maybe this is a browser issue on my end, or you just haven't pasted the links properly, I recommend a format where you simply put a number corresponding to which link you posted, and post the link at the bottom of the page, where there is enough room for the link to be "full."But luckily for us, I know about Newton's law of motion, and Lavoisier's law of conservations.NewtonAn object will lay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, you're correct. This does not prove God exists, this simply means something must have caused the Big Bang (our most recognized theory) to happen in the first place.LavoisierUnfortunately for your friend Antoine, I disagree with him, and science is also disagreeing with him.Before I get into this, I must remind you, we're talking about math, logic, time, mechanics, and matter, along with much more, on the quantum level. Not sure if you'll get this, but... remember when your buddy Dave told you about the "biggest number ever!!1!" being a "googol"? That's a one, followed by one hundred zeros. That's a hell of a lot, huh? Well, not quite. It's a drop in the bucket when we start talking about time in relation with our universe. Please keep in mind when we are talking about time (along with the several other main points of interest) on the quantum level, we aren't assuming the Universe has existed for a mere ~11,000 years, as the Bible claims.Now, let me bring up a topic that I've been doing a lot of research on recently - quantum fluctuations.First, here's a definition from Wikipedia [7], and a short elaboration on energetic particles by a great site explaining phenomena in the universe. For reference, try to wrap your head around this image - - This can be explained through the Uncertainty Principle, the theory that wave properties (yes, at the quantum level) cannot be perfectly examined [9]. Also, here is a PDF illustrating an experiment of macroscopic quantum fluctuations [10]. I know a lot of this is really going to be hard to understand, and some of it downright impossible for people without a PhD in quantum mathematics, but to sum it up, the certain amount of energy can create particles, or matter, that currently cancel each other out, with our technology, but theories have been proved with the process of Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion. This method [11] has been proved with video evidence (although quite grainy and poor quality) [12].If that's all too much to take in, this will help - energy always exists. Even in black holes, even in "vacuums" (which are no longer considered vacuums, assuming energy can always exist, energy can form particles for nanoseconds inside these vacuums), really everywhere. A period of time will exist when all energy has nothing to feed off of, and will produce these quantum fluctuations. This is suggested to happen, well, years from now, or somewhere in that time period. Mind you, this is just a theory, however considering quantum fluctuations have been recorded on a minimal scale, there could be a very good chance that they could happen on a quantum level - this means matter can be created from pure energy (what a lot of people consider "nothing"), and evidently, countering your argument regarding it being "impossible" for the universe to come out of "nothing," considering "nothing" doesn't exist [13].Now... back to the miracles...The difference between reading about miracles in the Bible and reading about anything in history or science books is that we can cross-examine, or even personally witness closely related events or findings in our science or history books. Let's use, for example, Moses splitting the Red Sea. You consider this a miracle, and although against the laws of, well, everything really, you say it is possible. We have nothing to show this is even remotely possible of happening, as nobody has recorded anything even close to something like that happening.And as I gave reasonable examples of, the Universe didn't technically from from "nothing."Just so we're both on the same page, plants and trees are alive. They most likely don't have any type of conscience, but they're living things. A plant is not the same as a rock. A plant grows and adapts to it's environment, and needs nutrients to survive. A rock does not.Conclusion- I have shown (so far) our history books are more valid than scripture.- Miracles are not only physically impossible, but nothing is able to back up or even relate to any example of a "miracle."- I have shown it is quite possible for something to come from "nothing," considering "nothing" most likely doesn't exist.- Not everything needs a conscience creator to come into existence.- Saying "an intelligent creator probably created the universe, so miracles are probably likely" is not a strong argument at all.Thanks a lot for a good first round, looking forward to the next![1] http://books.google.ca...[2] http://muse.jhu.edu...[3] http://www.natureworldnews.com...[4] http://www.pnas.org...[5] https://archive.org...[6] http://www.historyisaweapon.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://universe-review.ca...[9] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[10] http://oco.uoregon.edu...[11] http://profs.if.uff.br...[12] http://upload.wikimedia.org...[13] http://www.space.com...