Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

"Out of the over-a-billion Christians, I am aware that many of them are not true Christians, hence my reason for saying "thousands". Just because one calls him/herself a Christian that does not make him/her one; it is faith, obeying God and many more aspects of Christianity that class you as what you are."A collection of perfect universal truths should be so compelling and powerful and logical and obvious that it shouldn't cause division, it should foster unity. 1 or 2 good reads through the Bible should be able to convince the most skeptical, and should lead to the same conclusions regardless of the reader and their cultural indoctrination. If a truly all-knowing entity actually wrote a book, we should expect no less, no contradiction should ever gain currency. Indeed, the most skeptical among us would end up being the strongest believers because none of the arguments we use against it would be able, in our understanding, to overwhelm the truth contained within the tome, no matter how hard we tried. Faith should be a completely unnecessary method for discerning the truth. Instead, we see continual fracturing of the religion almost from day one. We see dozens of religions, many of which are older than Christianity, continue on in their beliefs, regarding Christianity as a cute superstition at best, and a damnable heresy at worse. And as we get better and better at observing the world around us and knowing what our observations mean, the number of atheists rises sharply. How can all of this occur thousands of years after the inception of Christianity if the wisdom of the Bible is so obvious and righteous? "Follow my other current arguments and you will see I'm doing just that."Well, I have been following your debate with Nautilus. In fact I even posted on that debate but you failed to respond. Unless I'm forgetting something, I didn't see you step outside of the Bible for support. What I did see, however, was this line that you wrote:"As for the other contributor, I didn't read that post, I am debating you not her."What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? I mean, I've got a dozen other arguments on this site containing information that I haven't brought up to you yet, but I don't intend on sending you out on a time-consuming hunt to seek them all down and decide which ones are most relevant to this conversation. If you don't want to re-type your arguments, you can always cut-and-paste."What do you wish me to present?"Logic, science, history, I'm not picky. Surprise me! The only stipulation is that it has to be extra-biblical. Like I said, I don't think I've seen you step outside of the Bible. 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." That wouldn't be too convincing now, would it?"Maybe I could disprove evolution (:"Feel free to try to do something that has yet to happen in over 150 years of continuous research. Indeed, I gave you a whole slew of pieces of supporting evidence to refute. Bring it on :)"As for the sites you gave me, they were rather irrelevant."That seems to be your stock answer to anything we provide you with. And being picky about sources isn't bad, indeed its rather scientific of you. The problem is, you aren't providing much aside from Bible quotations. Why don't you provide a few sources to show me what meets your criteria?Also, while I will grant some of the sources are better than others, pretty much all of them contain one or more of the following features: visual displays, references to outside sources, links to established definitions and descriptions of methodology, explanations of mathematical formulas, specific dates and so on. Your own source, the Bible, doesn't have any of these things. Its only source for its complete veracity is itself. Why not hold it up to the same standards?"the bible definition of a fool is a man without God who despises wisdom and instruction"Why is it so hard for you to realize that atheists aren't swayed by the Bible. Why not step into the common territory we both share: observed reality and the English language?from Dictionary.com:"Fool:1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.2.a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.3.a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.4.an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.5.a weak-minded or idiotic person." I am willing to rescind my evaluation of the ancestors based on the notion that none of these descriptions universally refer to them, but these descriptions certainly don't universally apply to scientists either."You never covered this point that I stated in my last post "Why also would Moses say that God made "man" if it was an ape that God made?"'I see there must have been some confusion between us. I was referring to the notion that humans not being quadrupedal anymore is in keeping with evolution, I was not trying to refer to Moses' statement particularly. I apologize for the confusion and my misunderstanding. That being said, I still don't see why I should place more faith in anything Moses said than any other founder of a religion.