Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

First off, I don't have time to dispute major posts like this as I am a full-time working girl therefore can only get on my computer at periodic intervals to check and reply to posts with a decent sized reply, but nothing like the length of these ones. For this reason, I will reply to only a couple parts and like you said this will help us focus on our actual debate as we have not one at this present moment. Furthermore, since you are arguing with Williams, there is difficulty here for me to put in my say when I cannot speak for such an intellectual man. What I will do is create an argument using one or more of the titles you have listed and from there on we can have our argument and include the reply you presented to his point. Firstly, before we get into anything deep, I would just like to ask one question. The debates here are often trying to put down Creationism and say it is nought but a fantasy story that makes folk cosy inside, but nobody actually attempts to disprove it other than mentioning supposed 'discrepancies' in Genesis. I was even sent a link and the 'discrepancies' were listed and they were absoluletly balderdash and took literally two seconds to disprove. However, my question is this: you seem so dedicated to your belief in evolution, so I am wondering if you can disprove creationism? If you cannot do this, then why rule it out when your own belief is said to have "much evidence" yet that is not actually presented? Moving on, since we have been batting back and forth without a main argument, I will just jump in here and present one then perhaps another one and you can choose to reply to whichever one you are drawn to most. For the sake of being interesting, I will make my first point one that includes my own faith:God not Absent or InactiveYour points here were that he was "too lazy to investigate" and whilst my opinion differs here, I can insert my own views/opinions/beliefs. This point is one that many atheists in conversation with a believer in attempt to 'prove' His non-existance. This is both stupid and never works on a Christian with faith as faith is about believing in Him yet not seeing Him with the eye. However, I can understand when it comes to the individual who questions everything and disbelieves for this matter and of course many others relating to 'lack of evidence' etc. The point here is, if He did present Himself like He did in biblical times, men would still find an excuse to reject Him like they did back then. Men simply use this excuse as an escape and if He did present Himself to us, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of faith? Furthermore, God is under no obligation to present Himself to His creation - perhaps similar to how you get some bosses in the workplace whom are never seen by his employees due to his status. The second part of your point; "inactivity" is completely false altogether, and again, this would be difficult to discuss with an atheist due to the fact that I cannot point my finger and show you what God had just done that moment. There are numorous ways that God works in peoples lives and I will use myself as an example; He guides me, disciplines me, listens to me. If you would like more examples, all you have to do is open the bible and see His works, that is if you are willing to learn. Hypothetically, if you were to look at all this and say 'but that isn't evidence, I can't see that' then why don't you 'look' at your own beliefs because you certainly can't see that can you? You don't see monkeys evolving into sinful men and you certainly don't see the evidence for such an event ever taking place. However, before I say more, I want to view your response to this point and your views and we can go from there with our argument.Secondly, the point I want to speak about now is the something you stated under the topic of the age of the world. You stated this: "Current estimate of age of life". This I cannot understand; you believe in something that you have no evidence for, can see no evidence for, and something that keeps changing its argument through the years? How can you be so devoted to something that is so unbelievably inconsistent? Yet you atheists believe that we are the dumb ones for believing something we "cannot see". Please, explain to me the point you have in believing something that a) is invented by men b) no real evidence is presented c) the "facts" are alterered throughout the years d) there is no evidence for!? You cannot seriously believe that my belief is the blind one here. I am intrigued to hear your explanation on this so please do go into depth. Lastly, I do appreciate your lengthly posts but I simply do not have the time to disprove it all and besides you are not arguing with me you are arguing with Williams and like I said before I cannot speak for such an intellectual man. Perhaps you will decide to respond to both of my posts but I am running late so I have to run.