Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

(Well, I didn't know if there is a character limit for arguments, but yep, there is, so I will have to break this down. Each additional part will be found in "supports" from the prior): Part I“Well, look at it this way: how is it fair that man rejected God over and over again even after all that He had done for them? He even sent His only Son who was rejected, spat on and crucified. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, you asked why its fair that you burn in hell, so that may not seem fair to you but you do have a choice.”What he “did” is give me the powers of observation and logic, and then failed to present himself to those powers in any way but through a highly spurious collection of fables with little-to-no outside evidence provided as verification, with appeals only aimed at the heart and not the mind, and the illogical and contradictory words of his followers. The only thing I have turned my back on is a highly suspect concept. “We are told in Romans 1:20 that "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Paul is telling us that God has clearly revealed Himself in nature to us. “Except of course for the billions of people who see different Gods and creation stories apparent in these “invisible attributes,” ones which have been supported by their own cultural upbringing, upbringing which cause them to reject all others. Yeah, they clearly have no excuse for not believing fables they haven’t heard and our contradicted by their own.As far as my comment of “Ease of acceptance”, what I meant was that if they were exposed to the teachings they may come to believe them instantly. But if they have the chance, we shall never know, and they will never have the opportunity to bring Christ into their heart.“Besides, even if we were to throw in a couple other religions such as Jews or Muslims, they have different rewards at the end of their lives don’t they?”Precisely my point. Different rewards, different potential punishments, different stories seeking to validate the religion’s claims, yet similar results. Social control, but control that isn’t necessary in light of the fact that atheists are just as capable of doing good works.In the next couple paragraphs, we are both basically saying the same thing, different people who HAVE been exposed to the Word of God have responded in different ways. We aren’t really debating anything at this point.“when it is their (the atheists) turn to provide evidence, they provide link after link, study after study that provides stories, diagrams and graphs yet lacks to provide the raw data that is evidence for the whole supposition. It is all very well sending me a study or a picture, but without the real evidence, it is irrelevant. “The earth was created x amount of time ago and blah blah blah” is not evidence, it’s a false statement without evidence.Huh, “thorough research” that fails to provide the evidence that supports the whole study… “Evaluated, closely inspected and cross referenced” by more scientists who fail to support their own theories with the raw data that is expected but not presented… I wonder why that is?”Which is really no different than the writing I am about to respond to. Indeed, Rev. Williams is highly inconsistent in his approach. Sometimes he does a wonderful job of citing his sources, but the vast majority of his points are completely unsupported by anything aside from us taking him at his word. And even when he does go a little more in depth, I fail to see how these points are anything different than the “scientists who fail to support their own theories with the raw data that is expected but not presented”… I wonder why that is? The primary exception is on most of the mathematical points. Those are usually sufficiently described, although based on improper evidence and/or failing to logically support his assertions. The biggest differences between my links and yours are: a) yours is longer. b) yours is much less consistent in presentation. c) yours is horribly out of date. “An explanation which interpreted means: excuses, excuses, excuses.”Here’s a challenge for you: go out and ask people what they believe about evolution. They don’t at all have to believe IN evolution (although it would be best to find people who do and people who don’t), just ask them what they know about it: What the definition of evolution is, what the evidence supporting it is, what the ACTUAL mechanism that runs it is, where the got their information from. I’ve been doing this informally off-and-on for awhile now and I’ve noticed that most people, regardless of their stance, have a hard time answering any of these questions, and most of them make only passing references to the actual molecular interactions involved. I suspect you will find similar responses.“Firstly, I ask that perhaps we narrow our debate down to one specific argument so that the posts are not so long and we can focus on one argument at a time. So, for example, our first argument can be evolution: you are for it, I am against it, and in doing this we throw other debates out the window for the time being. Are you in agreement with this?”Yes. In fact, since you called me on my delay, I will happily ignore all other debates on this site until this is posted (I’ve been writing it out on word this whole time, just came in to the file the revise a bit and finish it off.) Let me make one last comment on your response and then everything else will be about your link. But first:“P.S. - one minute you say you don't want scriptural evidence and that I should step ouside of the bible then you are asking me questions about hell and what Moses wrote, which, lets face it, the answers are in the bible. So, lets pick our one single debate and stick to it without changing the rules to fit our arguments.”Let me clarify, if what I am asking about is specifically about the Bible, than of course you have the right to quote scripture. But let me reiterate: If the Bible is completely true, than we can expect outside evidence of most of what it says, and there should be no such outside evidence that contradicts it. And if no outside evidence supports a notion (such as, for instance, Hell) than I don’t see any reason to believe in it. Okay, now let’s take a look a Rev. Williams’ arguments.