Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

and then failed to present himself to those powersHe presented those powers a while back and still people rejected Him. If He was to repeat this men would just search for another reason to say no to Him. Besides, why should He pander to our needs when He is our Creator and the Decider of all things? We have no right to order Him around.The only thing I have turned my back on is a highly suspect concept. You have turned your back on a lot more than that, my friend.We aren’t really debating anything at this point.This is true, we have veered off the original subject and begun to discuss matters that are in many ways irrelevant to the original debate.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.Exactly; they don't have evidence to support their inventions of evolution, haven't seen evidence for their invention and have a "hard time answering any of these questions" because they have no evidence or answers for that matter on evolution. Welcome to the right side, my friend, let me scooch over and make room for you on this cosy sofa whilst I hand you the Book of Truth.yours is horribly out of date.I can't believe you view that as a negative; since when did an old book become tripe? What, so famous authors from centuries ago should have their brilliant books burned simply because they are out of date? This is the most perposterous theory I have ever come across and is completely ridiculous. FYI, the bible is the best selling book and is ancient; example of one of thousands of old but still very popular books. Furthermore, you say mine is longer; so what? The longer the better; it provides much more explanations and manages to cover all the points which is something that your links and many more links I have been sent fails to do.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.The bible is completely true and the "outside evidence" is all around us for starters. The "outside evidence" supports the "notion" also, - if you have a hard time believing this then feel free to list the discrepancies you see and we can discuss this further as we have not got a decent thread of argument at this present time. Waits for critical response on my link :)P.S. If you take a while to reply, I understand and will wait patiently.