Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"Some do not have the ability to have the faith that Paul describes we should have - they cannot believe without seeing God, therefore they do not believe that wisdom and righteoussness is in the Bible."Sure, I'd put myself in that category. According to most Christians I'm going to end up Hell for that. However, if God created me as I am, than it really isn't my fault that I can't believe in him without evidence. So how is it fair that I roast in Hell for all eternity? Even less fair, what about the millions of people in the world who won't ever even be exposed to the Bible. Some of them might be fully able to accept it with ease, yet according to God's plan they never get the opportunity to accept Jesus, and will be sitting next to me in Hell (I should brush up on my foreign language skills, I suppose). "Others may be afraid to give up their successes and luxurious lifestyles, that ooze sin and shame, for God therefore shut Him out and continue on their paths to destruction."Fair enough. But there are plenty of other religions where people are encouraged to give up such lifestyles. Buddhism, for example. So why doesn't every Buddhist who is already compliant towards this lifestyle transfer over to Christianity upon exposure to it? "Perhaps another reason is that men take one look at all the suffering in the world and points his finger at God blaming Him for it then tells the world that he doesn't think God is fit to be worshipped."Or they conclude that He does not exist. As I never believed in God, I did not go through this directly, but many atheists don't go through a "blame God" stage. They instead go through a "well, that falsifies that hypothesis" stage. "There are countless answers, all you have to do is take a look at debates here on this site and read what the non-believers argue; your answer will lie there."Just as their are different types of Christians, there are different types of atheists. We each got to this point through our own reasoning and experiences. Most of the non-believers on the site seem to just want Christians to provide rational proof for God's existence. "You understand?"Yes, I do. My point was that you were asking me to do something that you seemed unwilling to do yourself. I think it is best for both of us to keep our points within the debate we are having, as both of us have time limitations. If a point isn't worth your time to cut-and-paste, it probably isn't worth my time to track down. "I have stepped outside of the bible, I have used text from studies and theories disproving Evolution that have used little or no scriptural evidence."Not in our debate here. As far as your debate with Nautilus, I didn't see any such thing until the last response you posted to him before I read this. And that was after I made my response to you."As for "To give you an idea of what this feels like, imagine if every argument that I made related to a quote from Darwin's "Origin of Species" believe me, I know what it feels like to have a bunch of studies rammed in my face over and over; its tiring and rather a nuisance."A bunch of studies (which have been closely inspected, evaluated and cross-referenced) > than a very old collection of fables with no references to external sources. It's called "thorough research.""Actually, evolution has been disproven, its nuisance scientists that keep claiming to have found another fossil from millions of years ago that keep the world thinking that evolution still has a chance of being proven."The funny thing is, modern evolutionary study is only mildly reliant on fossils at this point. I will admit that they get the most press. Many people are fascinated by dinosaurs, fossils are relatively simple, and for a layman to understand the molecular stuff going on requires a vast amount of explanation in biology and chemistry that most people wouldn't take the time to read anyway. But most informed evolutionists who know a few things about science are aware that the really good information is genetic. The fossils set the stage, but we couldn't properly figure out the mechanism that actually makes evolution work until we started being able to look at the DNA and make comparisons between different populations and generations. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff flies over the heads of most people who haven't studied biology, genetics and organic chemistry, so the articles on this stuff doesn't get as much face-time with the general public. As far as the theory of evolution being "proven", you apparently don't understand how scientific theories work. Theories aren't intended to be facts, they are intended to explain why facts happen. They are only ever as strong as our current knowledge base allows. There could always be something going on that we are not aware of, so scientists refuse to call a theory proven until we know everything about everything (which I suspect will never happen.) That being said, if a theory does not line up with the available knowledge, it can be disproved. Its called falsifiability, and this only has to happen once for scientists to turn their back on a theory, but it has to happen in a way that explains away or invalidates all of the supporting evidence. Contrary to what you have been told, this has never happened with the theory of evolution. Conversely, "creation science" can't even get off the ground. It can't even compete with fossil data or phylogeny, and has no hopes of dueling with genetics. "But yeah, I'm more than happy to bring it on. :)"You may start whenever you are ready :)"As for a link, here is one that I sent to another member a few hours previously; it disproves evolution and I find it of great value."I'm looking forward to it, but, I don't see any links here."Atheists use puns such as "holy crap" and guess what?"LOL. "Holy crap" isn't atheist slang, its just American, and older than I am. :)"Thats quite alright although you still haven't answered the point. I never asked you to place faith in Moses' words."I think it should be clear to you by now that I don't believe his words. I would need more verification to do so. How can I possibly know whether he was lying, misquoted or just plain wrong? So why would he say it? I don't have enough information to answer that, and I don't believe you do either.